Nanotechnology is the understanding and control of matter at dimensions of roughly one to 100 nanometers, where unique phenomena enable novel applications. Over the past several years the field of nanotechnology has continued to evolve at a rapid pace. As a follow-up to my last nanotechnology blog, I wanted to update readers about the latest activities of the National Nanotechnology Initiative.

The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is the program established in fiscal year 2001 to coordinate Federal nanotechnology research and development here in the U.S.  Today the NNI consists of the individual and cooperative nanotechnology-related activities of 25 federal agencies with a range of research and regulatory roles and responsibilities. The NNI as a program does not fund research; however, it informs and influences the Federal budget and planning processes through its member agencies.

In terms of nanotechnology funding, the total investment by NNI member agencies for 2011 is nearly $1.8 billion for nanotechnology R&D. According to the recently issued report entitled NNI Supplement to the President’s 2011 Budget, the document highlights Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives to accelerate nanotechnology development in support of the President’s priorities and innovation strategy. NNI member agencies identified areas for these initiatives ripe for significant advances through close and targeted program-level interagency collaboration.

You may be wondering “how I can provide my input as to what the NNI and the related agencies plan next in regards to nanotechnology?” I highly encourage you to attend the NNI’s Strategic Planning Stakeholder Workshop which will be held July 13-14 in Arlington, Va.  The goals of this event are to:

1. Bring together those who are new to nanoscale science, engineering and technology as well as those familiar with the NNI; 
2. Obtain stakeholder input regarding the goals and objectives of an updated NNI Strategic Plan; and 
3. Gather suggestions to the U.S. Government interagency task force that is drafting the new plan. Let your voice be heard!

In addition, in order to help members keep up-to-date on the various activities of the NNI and other nanotechnology organizations around the globe, I recommend that they become part of SPI’s Nanotechnology Group. The group’s mission is to provide a forum for nanotechnology resin and additive suppliers, processors and equipment suppliers within SPI to address nanotechnology issues, activities and opportunities related to the plastics industry. Also to learn more about nanotechnology and the plastics industry you can listen to SPI’s recent “Business of Nanotechnology: Nanotechnology 101” webinar. 

Nanotechnology is an exciting and evolutionary area. In my opinion, big changes continue to occur in the small world of nanotechnology.

Congress has re-opened critical dialogue on food safety with consideration of the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 (H.R. 2749), which passed the House of Representatives on July 30, 2009. Furthermore, with the proposed Food Safety Modernization Act  (S. 510) pending in the Senate, there is mounting concern that some may seek to bring food packaging into the fold of proposed legislation. 

In view of food packaging’s tremendous technical complexity and pivotal role in ensuring food safety and security in the U.S. and around the world, it is essential that lawmakers reviewing the regulation of food packaging rely on the extensive technical expertise and commitment to sound science among professionals at domestic regulatory agencies including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture,  trade associations like SPI and professional societies like the Institute of Food Technologists, the Society of Toxicology and the American Chemical Society.

Food packaging and its component substances have been regulated by FDA for more than 50 years, and in that time there has never been a documented adverse food safety event precipitated by a technical failure in food packaging.  Food packaging is carefully designed to be effective in preventing food spoilage and contamination while having limited transfer of its component substances to the food it contacts, and it is subject to an extensive premarket approval process at FDA that considers chemistry, toxicology, environmental impact and dietary exposure data as part of a detailed risk assessment. 

As threats to food security continually emerge through terrorism, drought and famine, food packaging plays a continually evolving role in helping to ensure a safe and abundant food supply that can be efficiently distributed to the world’s people. Think of the volumes of life-saving canned foods and bottled water that have been shipped to Haiti in the wake of the January 12th earthquake.

The availability of safe and effective food packaging and the innovation of improved food packaging should not be compromised by frameworks based on perceived versus scientifically documented risks.  Lawmakers should carefully consider available science to ensure that food-contact substances and packaging technologies that have protected our food for decades may continue to be used in the absence of scientifically credible toxicological threats to consumers.

Although SPI strongly agrees that the American healthcare system is in need of reform, we are extremely disappointed with the package passed by Congress and signed into law on Tuesday. Instead of addressing the issues that have resulted in the healthcare cost crisis — such as the lack of competition in many insurance markets, runaway litigation, or the inability of businesses to pool risk across state lines — we now face a law that places an undue burden squarely on the shoulders of the private sector employers that create and sustain America’s economic engine. As the third largest manufacturing sector in the U.S., the plastics industry impact will be far-reaching.

Through such provisions of the new law as the “pay or play” mandate, companies with 50 or more full-time employees will be forced to purchase federally-imposed levels of insurance coverage for their workers or face per-employee fines in the thousands of dollars. Smaller SPI member companies are not spared, as those who are incorporated as “Subchapter S-corps” may be subject to a new tax on their investment income. Plastic medical device manufacturers will now contend with a new excise tax on the sale of many of their products. Simply put, these new taxes and fees will inhibit a company’s ability to compete in the global marketplace, and will increase pressures on already-strained budgets and workforces.

Beyond these fees, plastics industry impacts are many. We do not yet know how insurance companies will respond to a 40% excise tax, or how states will pay for their increased Medicaid responsibilities; in all likelihood these costs will be passed on to our businesses, further hampering our ability to grow in this economic climate.

For our part, SPI vigorously lobbied against the most onerous aspects of this legislation, both directly and in coalitions with other like-minded stakeholders. Several grassroots mobilization alerts to our full membership resulted in members calling and sending letters to Congress, as well as raising their concerns in direct meetings with their elected officials. SPI continues its support of true reforms, laid out in a policy established by our member-driven process in early 2009.

I am proud of the way our member companies took up the fight in a coordinated effort to oppose this legislation and the fact that the manufacturing sector’s efforts succeeded in removing some particularly harmful provisions that were included in early drafts. Despite passage of this law, the national debate on health care reform will continue and SPI will remain active as it represents the interests of the plastics industry.

Life-cycle assessments (LCAs) have become a hot topic in the plastics industry.  According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a LCA…

 “…is a ‘cradle-to-grave’ approach for assessing industrial systems. “Cradle-to-grave” begins with the gathering of raw materials from the earth to create the product and ends at the point when all materials are returned to the earth… a LCA provides a comprehensive view of the environmental aspects of the product or process and a more accurate picture of the true environmental trade-offs in product and process selection.”

Several years ago, EPA’s Design for the Environment (DfE) program worked with representatives of the wire and cable industry to evaluate the environmental impacts of the current standard material formulations and alternative formulations used in insulation and jacketing for selected wire and cable products. The final LCA report was issued in 2008.

Members of SPI’s Wire and Cable Section of the Fluoropolymers Committee, many of whom were part of the EPA project, decided to build off of the DfE report.  The recently released peer-reviewed SPI report compares the life-cycle environmental impacts of fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP)-insulated plenum-rated communication wire (CMP) cable to a polyethylene (PE)-insulated rise-rated communication cable (CMR) encased in a metal conduit in plenum space. 

Ok, so what does that actually mean? From a basic building standpoint, “plenum space” typically refers to the space between the structural ceiling and dropped ceiling and is used to house communication cables for a building’s computer and telephone network.  Because plenum spaces are typically rich in oxygen, they pose a potential risk to a building in the event of a fire.  As a result, fluoropolymer resins, which have excellent durability in fire situations to meet and exceed safety codes and outstanding chemical and thermal resistance, are often used in the plenum space.  However building codes in Chicago and Las Vegas make the use of CMR in metal conduit more prevalent.  In addition, the use of CMR cable in conduit in Europe is common given the lack of built in plenum space.

This project scientifically evaluated the complete life-cycle impacts of functionally equivalent cable installation alternatives (i.e., FEP cable versus a PE-insulated cable in metal conduit) to quantify the differences between these alternatives so that so that electrical engineers, architects and building owners can make environmentally informed decisions.  The findings of the report were fascinating and provided detailed information about both options.  In order to make an educated decision when evaluating which option to use, you need to check this free report out.

Inside-the-beltway types contend with daily acronym overload, a non-stop alphabet soup denoting different agencies, policies and programs. Compounding the confusion for plastics industry professionals is that there’s often overlap with our own initiatives (OCS, for example, is short for both Operation Clean Sweep — an SPI environmental stewardship program — and the energy-rich offshore area known as the Outer Continental Shelf).

CRS stands for Congressional Research Service and, while largely unknown outside the world of public policy crunchers, they’re the legislative branch’s non-partisan research arm, functioning as a sort of in-house think tank for Congress. And one of its recent studies stood out from the myriad other government reports that SPI regularly reviews and digests.

On the subject of natural resource availability and cost, today’s popular media often paints a gloomy picture of our nation’s future, suggesting a bleak and desolate America marked by scarcity, sky-high prices, rationing — an overall diminution of prosperity.

CRS says otherwise.

In a recent report, CRS puts U.S. combined reserves of natural gas, oil and coal ahead of every other country in the world at 1321 billion barrels of oil equivalent. And this doesn’t even encompass reserves in known but harder-to-access resources such as oil shale. Russia comes in a close second, at 1248 billion, but then the field drops off dramatically. Saudi Arabia? Third, at just 543 billion. China’s next at 494.

The technological know-how exists to develop these resources efficiently, cleanly and safely. Skeptical? Think about the offshore platforms that withstood Hurricane Katrina.

Long story short: the U.S. can create its own energy future. The only question is, will we? For our industry – dependent on these resources for both feedstocks and fuel – it’s a question that can have only one answer.