Food Nanotech

This question was asked to a group of people that participated in the UK to a focus group which lasted four months in late 2010 and was carried out in six separate workshops. At the beginning, participants’ initial reactions were collected without providing information on the subject. Most people hadn’t even heard of nanotechnologies, so they were quite curious to learn more. At each workshop, participants were provided with some information on the topic: first, what nanotech is; then specific applications in the food industry and packaging; finally, information regarding regulation and consumer protection legislation. At each meeting, participants were asked to express their views, opinions and get answers to their questions.

At the very beginning people were given basic information about the principle of using nanotechnology in food, such as the use of nanoemulsions to reduce the fat content of a product, yet keeping the original taste, or the use of nanosensors in packaging to detect produce freshness. The general core reaction was rather positive, yet some fundamental issues were raised, like: do we really need this? Will it affect the price of products? Are these applications developed with in mind the interests of consumers, or are they just a way for industry to gain more? Is it safe? Do the benefits outweigh the risks?

During the course of the focus group participants were given more information on the different applications and their views became more varied. Some applications were perceived useful, to the benefit of individuals and society, others “useless” or “unnecessary”.
In general, the use of nanomatechnology in food packaging was seen useful: nanosensors embedded in the packaging could help consumers detect if a produce has “gone off” in their fridge or could help them choose a product in a supermarket. Participants expressed a fundamental need for those packaging to be recyclable, and their cost be adsorbed by manufacturers and retailers, and not passed on to the consumers. Also, the risk of this application was perceived low, since the consumer would not directly ingest these nanomaterials. Yet, a fundamental question was raised by some participants on the real benefit of this application for society: Do we really need to depend so much on technologies, to the point of risking losing our natural capabilities to defend ourselves through our sense of smell? Isn’t our nose enough? Of course this application could be useful for some impaired individuals, but does it need to become the stream technology in food packaging?

Comments to the use of nanotechnology in food were more critical. Worse of all was considered the use of nanotech for creating new foods (having new flavours, consistency etc.) which was perceived as unnecessary, since we already have enough food variety. In addition some viewed that those products might have some long-terms health effects that are unknown at present.

People were more positive about the use of nanotech for lowering the levels of salt/sugar/fat without affecting taste and texture of foods (like for instance chips, sweets, etc.). They felt this could benefit some individuals that have specific health problems (for instance, familiarity of high cholesterol levels), or it could assist people following a diet. Yet, some argued that this application would impair individual’s responsibility to eat a balanced and healthy diet and would even undermine government campaigns towards eating healthy and natural food. Even worse was the reaction towards the use of nanotech to develop foods that allow the consumer to feel fuller. Despite being possibly useful for people living in “unique circumstances” (e.g., living in poor countries, travelling long distances, etc.), it was felt that it could even have potentially serious consequences for people susceptible to eating disorders, such as teenage girls. For these applications the risk perceived was not much on the safety of the new food (some noted that we already have food fortified with vitamins, or with sugar-alternative additives), rather on its societal impact. Repeatedly, participants were questioning the real need for these applications.

There was agreement that a label should be placed in any food product containing nanomaterials, and that such label should be simple and straightforward. It was felt that a symbol (like a big “N”) would be good, without even mentioning the term “nanotechnology” which was felt to be unclear and “too scientific”. In addition to a logo on the product package, participants suggested to clearly state on the pack what nanomaterial was used (listed in the ingredients), what is the purpose of the nanomaterial in the product and its added benefit, a summary of potential risks and uncertainties, recommended daily intake and links to further information.
Although useful in principle, some argued that not everybody read the label, being time consuming, and that consumers don’t have the time to search for extra information in products they buy. Still, labelling was felt as a form of “transparency” from the manufacturerthe more information, the better, most argued.

 
Want to express you view? add a comment