Responding to the latest scientific advancements is not a simple matter for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A number of factors--such as the extent to which the new information intersects with EPA's statutory mission, as well as the quality of the research--necessarily impact EPA's response to this new science.

Editor's Summary: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was uniquely situated to have a profound impact on the development of federal environmental law--both because of the overlap of his tenure with the development of the field of environmental law and because of his four-decade tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court, more than one-half of which was as Chief Justice.

Editors' Summary: Grandfathering is a form of what some tax scholars call transition relief--the payment of compensation for a legal change. Grandfathered polluters and grandfathered emissions permits are both compensations for legal transitions, but the two are fundamentally different. In this Article, Edan Rotenberg defines the two types of grandfathering and exposes the problems these practices pose for environmental law. He begins with some definitions and an overview of compensation.

Editors' Summary: In working to protect species and enforce the Endangered Species Act, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) generally take one of two possible routes: litigation or collaboration. While some NGOs primarily use confrontational efforts to force agency action, such as petitioning the government to list a species, filing lawsuits to require timely agency action, and challenging decisions not to list through litigation, other NGOs use cooperative efforts with private landowners and agencies to help protect and recover species.

Editors' Summary:

Editors' Summary: Profs. Kenneth Abbott, Gary Marchant, and Douglas Sylvester argue that regulation of nanotechnology should be flexible and adaptive; innovative; international; and official. In order to meet these requirements, the authors call for negotiation of an international framework convention on nanotechnology as soon as possible. In response, Lynn Bergeson appreciates the inherent logic and appeal of their proposal, but questions whether the timing is right for the necessary parties to undertake the concerted effort needed to create such a convention.

An international framework convention protocol approach for nanotechnology is an intriguing notion and one that would appear to make good sense. This Comment on Profs. Kenneth Abbott, Gary Marchant, and Douglas Sylvester's proposal, as set forth in their excellent article entitled A Framework Convention for Nanotechnology?, is offered more to spark further thought than as a response to the question they pose.

In June 2004, representatives from 25 countries and the European Union (EU) met in Alexandria, Virginia, for an international dialogue on the responsible research and development of nanotechnology. The participants called for the creation of institutional mechanisms to foster an ongoing dialogue, the exploration on new governance tools and structures for nanotechnology oversight, the development of data-sharing mechanisms, and the need to expand the dialogue well beyond the scientific community to include industry and civil society actors.

Given the fact that nano particles are in more than 600 consumer products and that most recently, nano particles are being put in food, food packaging, and agricultural chemicals, Friends of the Earth believes it essential that a moratorium be immediately instituted in the United States and worldwide to stop this practice until some appropriate regulatory regime can be put in place. As the world's largest reinsurance company, Swiss Re, noted in its seminal report on nanotechnology, industrialized nations had learned little 100 years after the dangers of asbestos were known.

Nanomaterials and products containing nanomaterials are quickly being integrated into a wide range of commercial and noncommercial applications. As nanomaterials grow more commonplace, we are coming in contact with these substances on an increasingly regular basis, in products ranging from stain-resistant khaki pants to sunscreens. Despite the expanding use of nanomaterials, relatively little is known about the possible harm they could pose. Current forms of government regulation are proving inadequate in addressing this potential harm.