Nanotechnology Lawyer & Attorney : Porter Wright Morris & Arthur : Nanotechnology Law Report - Germanium nanobead image provided by UT-Battelle, which manages Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the Department of Energy

The General Assembly of Maryland has concluded its annual 90 day session. Among the bills that were passed during this year's session was House Bill 795, introduced by Delegate Susan C. Lee. 

As introduced, HB 795 was to establish a "Task Force to Study Nanotechnology and Nanobiotechnology", but was amended to focus solely on Nanobiotechnology and was passed by both the MD State Senate and the House of Delegates on April 1, 2010, signed into law by Governor Martin O'Malley on April 13, 2010 and Chapterized as Chapter 163 Acts of 2010.

The Task Force is to be composed of members appointed by the President of the MD State Senate, the Speaker of the House of Delegates - these individuals will serve as co-chairs of the task force - the Secretary of Business and Economic Development, Chair of the MD Technology Development Corporation or their designees. The Governor is empowered to appoint three representatives to the task force from universities and colleges in Maryland that are involved in research in nanobiotechnology and two CEOs of nanobiotech companies. In addition, the Directors of NIH, NIST, FDA and the USPTO or their designees are also to be invited to become part of the task force.

The task force is charged with studying the benefits  of the nanobiotech industry, ranging from job creation to "the generation of revenues for the state", the state's role in supporting nanobiotech, including promoting private-public partnerships, offering financial incentives for nanobiotech companies to establish themselves in Maryland, etc.. The task force is also charged with reporting its recommendations to the Governor on or before 01/11/2011, prior to the beginning of the next General Assembly session.

The State of Maryland has been criticized lately as having an "unfriendly" business environment for existing businesses or for companies that might relocate or expand into Maryland. Such criticism may become one of the themes of the 2010 election season in the state. Forward looking legislation such as Chapter 163, designed to help attract the next generation of nanoindustry, may help to prove that criticism wrong.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Here is the Summer 2009 edition of Nanotechnology Law Report.  The newsletter contains the below-listed articles (and more):

• EPA Issues Significant New Use Rules for Carbon Nanotubes
• Are Nanoparticles Released by Cutting or Compounding Nano-Composites?
• Annual Nano TiO2 Production Estimated at 44,000 Metric Tons
• Are Nano Consumer Products Headed Underground?
• Oversight of Next Generation Nanotechnology
• Regulating Nanotechnologies
• More Interesting Nano-Regulatory Developments
• Nano Tug of War
• Pumpkins & Nanoparticles
• Green Nano
• NanoBiotech 2009
• Take two silver nanoparticles and call me in the morning
• International Approaches to the Regulatory Governance of Nanotechnology
• ETUC Resolution on Nanotechnologies and Nanomaterials
• Private Spending on Nano Exceeds Government Spending
• EMERGNANO Released

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 Friends of the Earth recently posted "Out of the Laboratory and on to Our Plates: Nanotechnology in Food and Agriculture" their website. The report is the product of a committee, something which is obvious not just from the 13 contributors who are identified, but also from the swings in tone throughtout the report, ranging from calm

     Until we have a much more comprehensive understanding of the biological behaviour of nanomaterials, it is impossible to predict the toxcity rises associateds with any material, and each new nanomaterial must be subject to new health and safety assessment prior to its commercial use (pp.5-6)

to the downright paranoid:

   . . .  nano-sensors could be used to gather more sensitive information about individuals, for example genetic make up, health or disease profiles (p.34)

  While this report begins with a focus on the use of nanomaterials in agriculture, food processing, preservation, etc, it very quickly shifts to a discussion of nanotechnology being used to create artificial life:

    Nanobiotechnology now appears to offer a new suite of tools to manipulate the genes of plants or animals

   In a chapter titled "Time to choose sustainable food and farming", all possible objectivity fallas away and nanotechnology and nanomaterials are accused of :

 Loss of biological diversity:

    . . .  nanotechnology entrenches and expands the industrial scale model of monoculture agriculture which has resulted in rapid loss of agricultural and biological diversity over the last century.

         Nanotechnology . . . appears likely to entrench our dependence on a chemical-intensive system. (pp. 32-33)

Creating agricultural monopolies:

     By underpinning the next wave of technological transformation of the global agriculture and food industry, nanotechnology appears likely to further expand the market share of major agrochemical companies, food processors and food retailers. (p. 33)

Increasing farm labour unemployment and population shifts:

    Nanotechnology . .  . could dramatically accelerate existing trends towards large-scale, high-technology agricultural production requiring almost no on-farm labour .

   .  . . this could also result in the further decline of rural communities. (p. 33)

And finally, loss of knowledge:

    Nanofoods . . .  could also have negative social consequences by eroding our understanding of how to eat well and agricultural knowledge . . .  developed over thousands of years.

    . . .  with the increasing use of nanotechnology to alter the nutritional properties of processed foods, we could soon be left with no capacity to understand the health values of foods . . . . (p.34)

     The above are all in addition to nanobiotechnology and nanomaterials being responsible for the increased loss of privacy. In other sections of this report, its implied that nanoparticles are the cause of increases in reports of Crohns Disease, Alzheimer's Disease, and a variety of other illnesses and syndromes which all happened to be diagnosed and described long before the advent of manufactured nanomaterials or nanoparticles.

    In the end, this study recommends abandoning the large "industrial" farm model and returning to small, local farms using organic farming methods, which one presumes will lead to the establishment of an earthly paradise.

    Its disappointing to read studies like this, which do raise relevant questions and criticisms - the FDA and the EU come in for legitimate criticism for a lack of regulations on the use of nanomaterials in food processing and preservation - and the appendix 'Summary of EU Regulations Applicable to the Use of Nanotechnology in the Food Sector" is very useful. But such studies demolish their own creditbility by advocating particular social, environmental economic and political agendas.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Mark your calendar for the one-day conference “NanoBiotech 2008” set for September 15, 2008 which is being co-sponsored by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (Troy, NY) and Bawa Biotechnology Consulting LLC (Ashburn, VA).  This is the fifth in a series of international conferences they have conducted dating back to 2003 on the converging areas of nanotechnology and biotechnology. 

From the conference's website:  "The conference will feature 20+ speakers, including 2 keynotes and a networking luncheon. All presentations (20-30 minute Power Points) will be fast-paced, focused and will rely upon extensive color graphics and animations to reach the diverse audience. Raffle drawings will be held throughout the day." 

You can find the agenda from last year's highly recommended conference here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link