If the Toxic Substances Control Act is to be rewritten (see below), one of the targets in the process will be nanotechnology. From the Houston Chronicle, “Warnings issued on nanotechnology“:

Pressure for regulation

This month, the EPA decided to classify carbon nanotubes as “new” chemicals. But even if all nanomaterials are classified as “new,” they’re unlikely to face a rigorous review because of weaknesses in the toxic substances act, said J. Clarence Davies, a senior advisor to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.

Davies plans to be among those testifying at today’s hearing before the U.S. House subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection. He and others are expected to urge lawmakers to pressure the EPA to adopt a more comprehensive approach to regulating chemicals, similar to that of a 2006 European Union law. That act requires companies to prove chemicals are safe, unlike TSCA, which puts the burden on the government to prove a harm.

The looming regulations have prompted something of a boon for consultants who seek to guide companies.

“Everyone in the country is laying off people,” said Harry Bushong, president of NanoTox. “Right now, I need to hire people.”

Perfect. Apply the precautionary principle to nanotechnology and watch innovation disappear. But consulting firms…

UPDATE: (11:20 a.m.): And indeed, the testimony on nanotechnology came from the Chronicle-cited

And here’s the witness list and prepared premarks for today’s Energy and Commerce Subcommittee Hearing on “Revisiting the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.”

A House Energy and Commerce subcommittee holds the opening hearing today in what could well be a multiyear effort to establish the “precautionary principle” as the regulatory framework for treatment of all chemicals used in commerce. The precautionary principle requires those who seek to introduce new products into the marketplace to prove conclusively that those products will cause no harm, ever. Applying this unattainable standard to chemicals — prove the negative: NO RISK! – would stifle innovation, invite yet another expansion of the litigation shakedown game, and drive people out of business. (For more on the precautionary principle, see the extended entry section below.)

Think the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act has had disastrous effects on home-based businesses, thrift stores, the clothing industry, recreational vehicle manufacturers and retailers, libraries and bookstores, artisans, toy makers, Irish step-dancers and, oh yes, consumers? Rewriting the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 could be CPSIA tripled.

According to the website of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, the committee’ hearing is, “Revisiting the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976,” scheduled at 10 today to “address critical gaps in the statute and explore how these gaps hinder effective chemical safety policy in the United States.”

Some commenters have seen the hearing as setting the stage for reintroduction of the Kid Safe Chemical Act, legislation that would “ensure for the first time that all the chemicals used in baby bottles, children’s toys and other products are proven to be safe before they are put on the market” – that’s the description from a news release last year by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). Lautenberg, Rep. Henry Waxman — the full committee chairman — and Rep. Hilda Solis, now Labor Secretary, sponsored the legislation in 2008. (H.R. 6100 and S. 3040). Thankfully, bills that mentions “kids” or “children” in their titles never affect anyone other than children or have unintended consequences.

In attempting to rid the world of all risk, advocates of the precautionary principles create regulatory and economic paralysis. If you’re the manufacturer of plastic bath toys, for example, trying to replace the phthalates banned by the CPSIA, every possible substitute chemical is an invitation to lengthy, expensive and capricious regulatory review followed by cash-seeking litigation. Why bother?

The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, chaired by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL), is the committee with jurisdiction over implementation of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. Rather than holding an oversight hearing into the economic catastrophe caused by the law, the committee is looking to see what other portions of the economy it can intervene in. A more serious, necessary focus would start with a review of the CPSIA. (continue reading…)