The Sunday New York Times featured an article on the efforts of U.S. industry groups to push for federal regulation. As the article points out, this represents a marked shift in the traditional conception of industry's views on regulation. Historically, industry representatives often see regulation as costly and vexing. A graphic in the article briefly summarizes 14 examples of new federal regulations supported by manufacturers or industry lobbyists. In some cases, such as the toy industry, representatives appear to have good intentions. A recent hearing proves that industry representatives recognize the benefits associated with a strong federal regulatory regime. Unfortunately, as with lead paint in toys and diacetyl in popcorn, even the combination of strong public and industry support (not to mention overwhelming health-based evidence) is not enough to prompt the Bush administration into action. As the article shows, agencies often don't act to regulate substances like lead and diacetyl despite support for doing so from industry lobbyists. Is this a sign senior administration officials' anti-government ideology trumps their industry loyalties? In other cases, representatives may be employing a calculated strategy. Industry lobbyists may rather have product regulations written by the Bush administration (and edited by Bush's OMB) than by a future administration that may be less friendly. With the clock running down on Bush's second term, this may be the last opportunity for a middle-of-the-road regulatory approach. The Sunday Times also featured two editorials (here and here) titled, "The Need for Regulation."