Nano-modified Food: How Benefits need to be apparent for acceptance

Much Are Consumers Willing Michael Siegrist, Professor at the Institute for
To Accept The Associated Risks? Environmental Decisions at ETH Zurich, set about
probing this issue. In a representative study, he and
his research team asked 337 randomly selected
ScienceDaily (July 22, 2008) — Consumers have
people from all over Switzerland about their risk
largely grown to accept nanotechnology in nutrition
perception for various kinds of food and packaging
for packaging and, to a lesser extent, even the food
that benefit from the functions of the nanoparticles.
itself. This is according to a study from ETH
“In the meantime, research and industry know a
Zurich’s Institute for Environmental Decisions
whole range of potential nanotech uses for food.
(IED).
However, still only very little is known about the
risks of the technology and how the consumers
In recent years, nanotechnology has joined gene and
perceive them”, explains Siegrist. By publishing the
information technology in becoming a pinnacle of
results of the study in the journal “Appetite”,
hope for research and industry. The fields of
however, he has bridged a gap in the knowledge of
materials science, electronics, environmental and
how well nanotechnology is accepted in the food
medicine are all looking to particles, most of which
sector.
are smaller than 100 nanometers, effectively an
800th of a hair’s breadth, for all kinds innovation.
The participants in the study had to evaluate 19
The latest uses for nanotechnology include food
potential uses for nano-applications in comestibles
products and their packaging.
and packaging in a questionnaire. These included
the aforementioned “individually modifiable foods”,
Modifiable lasagna
comestibles with cancer-preventive additives, a
chemical salmonella detector, the nano-
What sounds like pure science fiction today may
encapsulation of vitamins, healthy green tea and
soon find its way onto our supermarket shelves:
packaging that protects comestibles from UV light.
precooked lasagna, for example, where you can
The respondents had to evaluate the applications
modify the color, taste and proportion of various
according to their own perception of the risks and
nutrients by adjusting the heating period in the
particular use on a scale ranging from 1 (very low)
microwave. These kinds of products are called
to 5 (very high).
“individually modifiable foods” as they can be
adjusted to suit individual requirements thanks to
“The acceptance for the packaging was relatively
nanoparticles. Other potential uses for
high, while the nanotech food was evaluated
nanotechnology rest in the packaging, which
considerably more critically”, explains Siegrist,
increases the shelf life of the food and indicates
summing up one of the main results. The risk
when its content matter expires.
researcher also finds it interesting that the possible
diffusion of nanoparticles from the packaging into
Nanoparticles, however, are considered as highly
the product was not perceived as a threat, despite
reactive and it is not yet clear whether under certain
the fact that critics have used this particular hazard
conditions they can get the better of protective
time and again as an argument against
mechanisms and have a toxic impact on the body.
nanotechnology.
The Risk Dialogue (Risiko Dialog) St. Gallen
Foundation has dedicated itself to the subject, the
The study furthermore revealed that acceptance
Federal Office for the Environment (BAFU) has
essentially depends on the recognition of a direct
adopted an action plan for potential hazards and the
use in the product. According to Siegrist, the
Research Institute for Materials Science and
respondents were more willing to accept risks in the
Technology (EMPA) is also addressing
case of the additives for the cancer prophylaxis than
nanotechnology and its risks in its research
for uses that are “merely” healthy. As the use of
program. This begs the question as to how far
nanotechnology in food is often not self-
consumers today would be willing to accept the
explanatory, it is paramount that it be
risks associated with nano-modified food.
communicated to the consumer early enough. As far
as Siegrist is concerned, communication is doubly
important as it is the only way to guarantee the
consumers’ confidence in nano science and industry.
He believes that synchronizing the expectations of
the consumer and the interests of industry from the
outset could avoid a conflict of interest as, for
example, is very much the case in gene technology.
“We should learn from our mistakes and provide the
necessary explanations for acceptance at an early
stage”, says Siegrist, explaining the motivation
behind his study.
“We cannot afford to ignore fears and
expectations, even at this early stage”
Although Siegrist avoided technical questions in the
questionnaire, he is confident that the bulk of the
population’s standard of knowledge as far as the
risks and opportunities of nanotechnology are
concerned is still extremely low. After all, a public
dialogue on the subject is still greatly lacking.
Equally as low was the response to the
questionnaires sent out – only 28 percent of those
who received one showed an interest in the survey,
the majority of which had a high level of education.
This led to a slight distortion of the results.
However, Siegrist could not detect any socio-
demographic differences like age or gender in the
evaluation of the results.
Siegrist believes that the topic of nanotechnology
will become increasingly topical in years to come,
particularly in the food sector: “We would be well-
advised to address the fears and wishes of the
consumers today. Otherwise, we’ll soon find
ourselves contending with deep-set points of view,
as is now the case in the debate surrounding gene
technology”.
(Emphasis added.)