My friend Rich Liroff runs an organization called Investor Environmental Health Network (IEHN) that encourages companies to reduce or eliminate toxic chemicals from their product lines. Smart. IEHN uses shareholder resolutions along with direct meetings with companies to encourage them to make the transition away from toxics. I provide the nano-science support for a lot of the IEHN work, and often find our meetings with large corporations to be a positive experience. After just tossing around a few choice phrases like "toxic tort" and "product liability" I find that the companies seem eager to find less hazardous ways of conducting business.

Now, Rich has written a great article showing that regulations for hazardous nanomaterials are too lax, the vounteer corporate initiatives to prevent harmful nanomaterial exposures have all been a failure, and existing disclosure requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission are inadequate. (What? The same SEC that failed to prevent the entire meltdown of the financial markets is inadequate to predict toxic chemical threats? I'm so surprised...not).

But, Rich writes that "investors have encouraged companies to publish policies on their use of nanomaterials. Both Kellogg's and Colgate-Palmolive have done so. Avon was also asked by investors for a policy on nanomaterials, and investors have also engaged Kraft Foods, Procter & Gamble, McDonald's, and Pepsi."

I don't know what will come of these policies, but it's a step in the right direction towards transparency, disclosure, and public accountability. Nice work, IEHN.