SUBSCRIBE

Breaking News on Confectionery & Biscuit Processing

News > Ingredients

Comment

Nanotechnology in food: What’s the big idea?

2 commentsBy Caroline Scott-Thomas , 26-Jul-2010
Last updated the 28-Jul-2010 at 17:56 GMT

Let's get talking about nanotech. The science of the very small has filled the food industry with big ideas – but industry is torn on how to present nanotechnology to consumers, stalling product development.

More effective methods of detecting foodborne pathogens, better delivery of micronutrients, longer shelf life – these are all great potential benefits – but research shows that consumers still need a lot of convincing that nanotechnology is safe for food use, and so does industry. On the consumer side, there is a certain faction that may never be persuaded.

However, as the science emerges on the safety of nano, the food industry should at the very least be talking about it. Instead, many major food companies are going quiet, preferring to take a wait-and-see approach. If the silence continues, nanotechnology may yet fail to deliver its benefits to the food industry, and to consumers.

Learning from GMOs

At IFT’s nanoscience conference last week, major industry players discussed how to avoid a rerun of the GMO debacle with consumers – with some saying that one solution could be to say nothing about introducing nanotechnology in foods and to do it anyway.

It is hard to imagine a bigger mistake.

Right now, consumer fears over nano could be contained to a storm in a (teeny-weeny) teacup, but if there is even a whiff of industry deception, consumer concern would erupt into a full-blown tempest. And as we learned from GMOs, that’s a storm that’s nearly impossible to calm.

There are obvious parallels between nanotechnology and the genetic modification of food crops, not least the fact that GM promised a raft of potential benefits through new scientific methods, and consumers, most of whom had little understanding of the science, were wary of that promise.

Ever since the food industry started exploring the possibilities for nanotechnology, it has been saying that we need to learn from GM. On the whole however, the areas that it has been willing to learn from have been narrow. GMOs were commercialized with a definite financial focus, a factor that certainly contributed to their demonization.

Tackling consumer concerns

With this experience in mind, nanotech advocates have frequently said that nano should first concentrate on benefits for the consumer. Yes, but which ones? And will they be persuasive enough? At the moment everyone is tiptoeing around the issue, unwilling to risk a tarnished reputation by talking about nano too soon.

But while the debate rages about whether consumers would be more receptive to nano benefits for health or for safety, I would argue that the best thing for industry is to get in early and publicize the debate. Let’s get consumers involved. The biggest lesson that we can learn from GMOs is that it is difficult to restore confidence once it is lost, so let’s try to preempt consumers’ concerns.

Companies should continue researching the safety as well as the potential of nanotechnology – and be open about it – so that there is no suggestion further down the line that findings or product development were hidden.

And how about setting up a publically available register of nanomaterials in use in the food industry? The closest we have right now is from The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, run by the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. It currently lists 93 manufacturer-identified food or food-related products on the global market, mostly in the packaging category.

There are still huge hurdles – just defining nano is a minefield – but let’s keep the research dollars flowing, and keep the discussion open and free. Burying the issue will only result in intensified consumer backlash.

Caroline Scott-Thomas is a journalist specializing in the food industry. Prior to completing a Masters degree in journalism at Edinburgh's Napier University, she had spent five years working as a chef.

2 comments (Comments are now closed)

Labeling and Loss Aversion

A prior comment brings up the issue of consumers having 'loss aversion' - fear that the choices they make have been (or will be) stripped of meaningful control. GMOs are a good example, in that corn-and soy-based products in the US are so predominently GMO-sourced that - especially in the absence of labeling standards that identify the GMO status of each ingredient - consumers find it almost impossible to control this factor with their purchasing decisions.

Thus labeling that meaningfully identifies nanotechnology components is essential, ideally listing these by name in a standalone 'NANO Ingredients' section. This is necessary because different NT ingredients will have different safety profiles, and consumers may come to base their purchasing decisions on an ingredient-by-ingredient basis.

Report abuse

Posted by Jon Yaffe
30 July 2010 | 14h57

Learning from GMO Debate

Having been involved with various industry participants in the GMO plant area for a number of years now I could not help but want to comment on your article. My cautionary comment is that by even having a debate about having a debate (!) you are already at risk of creating issues with nanotechnology. Those opposed to technologically-driven consumer benefits latch onto the time honoured strategy of loss aversion - that is they create a dialogue with publics that allow them to show that by adopting technologies consumers will 'lose' something - whether it be choice, health-related, dollars and so on and so on. The key is openness and creating a debate that shows a desire to discuss benefits in a framework that allows consumers the chance to feel they have a say.

Report abuse

Posted by Robert Brewer
26 July 2010 | 23h28

Key Industry Events

 

Access all events listing

Our events, Events from partners...