Nanofood -- An Update

The Choice is Yours

column by Gregor Wolbring

June 15th , 2009

http://politicsofhealth.org/wol/2009-06-15.htm

Food is one main area of nanotechnology application. A 2006 OECD and Allianz report stated:” Nanotechnology will not only change how every step of the food chain operates but also who is involved. At stake is the world’s $3 trillion food retail market, agricultural export markets valued at $544 billion, the livelihoods of farmers and the well-being of the rest of us. Converging technologies could reinvigorate the battered agrochemical and agbiotech industries, possibly igniting a still more intense debate – this time over "atomically-modified" foods.” The NanoFOOD Consortium in Denmark was established in the summer of 2005 with the objective of ensuring that the food industry remains competitive through further collaboration with research institutions active within the areas of foods, nanoscience, nutrition, and information and communication technology. The mission was to provide nanoscience to the food industry, in order to ensure safe and healthy food products in the future. In a recent survey about the ‘top 10 nanotechnology applications for Developing Countries’, agricultural productivity enhancement was in second place and food processing and storage was in sixth place. According to the consultant group Kaiser which worked for many years on nanotechnology issues states “more than 180 applications are in different developing stages and a few of them are on the market already. The nanofood market is expected to surge from USD 2.6 bn. [2003] to 7.0 bn. US dollars in 2006 and to 20.4 bn. US dollars in 2010. More than 200 companies around the world are today active in research and development. The USA is the leader followed by Japan and China. By 2010 Asia with more than 50 percent of the world population will be the biggest market for nanofood with the leading of China.” Cientifica another consulting group which worked on nanotechnology since 2000 wrote in their blog and in a recent report that Nanotechnologies in the food industry will grow from $410 million in 2006 to be worth $5.8 billion by 2012. Cientifica sees the following Challenges & Drivers of Nanotechnology Applications in the Food Industry:

Food is a highly sensitive area of discourse in relation to nano applications, and a main battleground regarding the perception of nano applications. Included in this discourse is how to regulate nanotechnology products, and whether such regulation is needed. In July 2006 I covered Nanofood the last time in my column. In 2007 I covered Nanofood for IATP. In both areas I focused on food and not on agricultural practices although both are targeted and impacted by nanotechnologies. What has happened since then? According to a recent friends of the Earth nanofood report, while “estimates of commercially available nanofoods vary widely; nanotechnology analysts estimate that between 150- 600 nanofoods and 400-500 nano food packaging applications are already on the market”. This picture has not changed much since 2006 and 2007. On the application side it is still about food processing, monitoring, labeling, storage, distribution, tastes, textures, nutrient absorption, nutraceuticals, safety testing and prevention of food-borne disease. A February 2009 National Geographic story, "Nanofoods Offer Big Flavor, Low Fat, Stealth Vitamins", lists a) nanosalt for potato chips which due its increased surfaces area allowed for an increased ‘salty’ experience with less salt; b) Nano-mayo which the oil with water droplets thinly coated with oil resulting in lower fat but full flavour; c) enrichment of a wide range of foods with tiny, tasteless capsules of vitamins, minerals, or health supplements such as bread could be enhanced with fish oil without tasting fishy; d) in China, nano forms of selenium have been used to enrich green tea to combat deficiencies in some parts of the country; e) low-fat milkshake by coating microscopic grains of silica, a sand-like mineral, with chocolate.

Safety

On the safety side there is still no certainty. The Institute of Food Science & Technology in a 2006 Information sheet on nanotechnology and Food highlighted a variety of concerns with regard to the human medical health and environmental safety of Nanoparticle. Others have covered health and environmental safety aspect of food since then (National Geographic, 2009 piece published by Nanowerk, 2008 piece by Scientific America, friends of the Earth nanofood report). Quite a bit of research has been done regarding Nanotechnology products and process impact on Environment, Health and Safety (see bibliography). The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), a food safety watchdog, published an opinion on the potential risks arising from nanotechnologies on food and feed safety. However so far all these activities seem not to have translated into safety certainty related to nano food applications. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) finds it difficult to risk assess certain nanomaterials and products due to uncertainties in detection and measuring levels of nanomaterials. The EFSA recommends that additional research and investigation is needed to address the many current uncertainties and data limitations, with a particular focus on the following areas:

The International Risk Governance Council published in 2009 a policy brief, Appropriate Risk Governance Strategies for Nanotechnology Applications in Food and Cosmetics and in 2008 a report Risk Governance of Nanotechnology Applications in Food and Cosmetics. The brief states that” lack of risk assessment data is one of the reasons that there have been several calls for moratoria”, such as from friends of the Earth in their nanofood report and the International Union of Food Workers (IUF).

The IRGC generated the following recommendations

for Standardization Technical Committee (ISO/TC) 229 and the Technical

Specification ISO/TS 27687:2008 as a basis for defining nanotechnologies

and nanomaterials used in food and cosmetics.

pre-market testing and life-cycle analyses, for assessing toxicity.

stakeholder groups.

which take into account new results in research as well as risk assessments

concerning hazard, exposure and impacts on environment, health and safety

(EHS).

ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI). Such communication should involve full

disclosure and transparency. For this purpose, better training opportunities and professional risk communication practices should be initiated for all stakeholders involved in the governance of nanotechnology risks.

The question is how do different groups interpret the actions needed to fulfill the recommendations?

Regulation:

The Institute of Food Science & Technology, in its Information sheet on nanotechnology and Food, published in February 2006, highlighted that it is legal in the UK to sell materials for use in foods. This prohibition was based on safety data for the macroscopic material and the fact that there was no requirement to label foods nanoparticles. In 2009 the Framing Nano project, funded by the European Commission, published the Mapping Study on Regulation and Governance of Nanotechnologies which among other findings posits a regulation expectation divide.” NGOs, including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth , consider the existing regulatory situation to be inadequate and are urging a strictly precautionary approach. A number of environmental and consumer organisations want nanomaterials to be classified as new substances and subjected to "nano-specific" regulations. Industry representatives are instead seeking the development of specific guidance and standards to support implementation of existing regulations, which are generally seen as adequate”. However there are other disagreements at to how to proceed. In 2008 the European Commission again expressed confidence that existing EU regulation can be applied to this emerging sector, stressing that the challenge ahead lies in their implementation. In 2009 the European Parliament backed “a report by Swedish Green MEP Carl Schlyter urging the European Commission to revise its stance on nanomaterials. MEPs said all nanomaterials should be considered as new substances, and that existing legislation does not take into account the risks associated with nanotechnology.” As a EuroActive.com news item states, According to the Commission's recent regulatory review (June 2008) on the issue, the current EU legislative framework "covers in principle the potential health, safety and environmental risks in relation to nanomaterials". The Communication on regulatory aspects of nanomaterials states that nanotechnology is covered under current EU laws on chemicals, consumer products and the environment. But the EU executive is recommending that "current legislation may have to be modified in light of new information becoming available, for example as regards thresholds used in some legislation".

Perception:

The Friend of the Earth Australia nanofood report states that “early studies of public opinion show that given the ongoing scientific uncertainty about the safety of manufactured nanomaterials in food additives, ingredients and packaging, people do not want to eat nanofoods”. A study performed by the ETH Zurich's Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED), "Perceived Risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging" was published in the journal Appetite Vol 51 Issue 2 September 2008 pages 283-90. Authors: M. Siegrist, N. Stampfli, H. Kastenholz, C.Keller (in a write up -- see here) state in its abstract “affect and perceived control are important factors influencing risk and benefit perception. Nanotechnology food packaging was assessed as less problematic than nanotechnology foods. Analyses of individual data showed that the importance of naturalness in food products and trust were significant factors influencing the perceived risk and the perceived benefit of nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging.” One finding of the study was that “Consumers may be reluctant to buy drinks or foods in which flavors, food colors or nutrients are released according to the wavelength chosen when warmed in the microwave. Antibacterial milk bottles for babies and nutritional supplement capsules evoked high levels of negative affect.” In the 2009 International Risk Governance Council policy brief, Appropriate Risk Governance Strategies for Nanotechnology Applications in Food and Cosmetics, one reads the following assessment of the perception discourse: “The debate on nanotechnology fed into the ongoing polarisation of public attitudes towards industrial food processing. This debate, based on values rather than evidence, has been particularly enduring in Europe due to the association of food products with genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and extends to organic food and nature in general. It is also the result of different levels of trust in certain key actors such as industry, public authorities, the science community and NGOs.” And in the 2008 IRGC report, Risk Governance of Nanotechnology Applications in Food and Cosmetics, one reads, “Even if public perception of nanotechnologies is still positive in general, new survey data and the findings of citizen conferences show that society is highly concerned about safety and health when nanomaterials are used in food and, to a lesser extent, in cosmetics.” The IRGC report characterizes the industry response as a wait and see a attitude. The IRGC report suggests that this response did not work in other cases and very likely will not work in this case.

._,_.___

The Choice is Yours:

Nanofood seems to be a important area for consumers, regulators, NGO’s and industry. The discourse so far has not lead to a solution regarding the type of nanofood processes, products and applications to be generated, and the governance framework that should regulate them. Its up to the reader to decide whether they want to get involved in the discourse around what applications nano-technology should have regarding food, and within what regulatory and governance framework it should operate.

As usual the choice is yours.

All of the "The Choice is Yours" articles can be found here.

Gregor Wolbring is an Assistant Professor at the University of Calgary. He is Affiliated Scholar, Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University, USA; Part Time Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa Canada; Adjunct Faculty Critical Disability Studies, York University, Canada. He is a science and technology governance scholar, a disability/vari-ability/ability studies scholar, and a health policy and science and technology studies researcher. He is a member of the Center for Nanotechnology and Society at Arizona State University. He is the Chair of the Bioethics Taskforce of Disabled People's International. He publishes the Bioethics, Culture and Disability website, authors a weblog on NBICS and its social implications and on Ableism and Ability Ethics and Governance and contributes to the What Sorts of People blog.

© Gregor Wolbring, All Rights Reserved, 2009. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.