Mark Henderson
London Times
January 10, 2010
The secretive attitude of food companies towards nanotechnology research risks starting a consumer backlash against products that could improve health and reduce waste, a parliamentary inquiry has found.
Nanomaterials that are 800 times finer than a human hair have the potential to deliver foods that are very low in fat and salt and packaging that changes colour when food is spoiled because of the strange properties of molecules at such a small scale. Their development, however, has also raised safety concerns because their effects on humans are poorly understood.
These fears have inspired a culture of secrecy about nanotechnology in the food industry because it is worried about a repeat of the GM crop safety scare, according to a report from the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee. This lack of transparency could encourage exactly the sort of mistrust that companies hope to avoid.
The committee also found significant gaps in scientific understanding of the toxicology of nanomaterials, which need to be addressed urgently with new research so that they can be regulated effectively.
Nanomaterials are attractive to the food industry because their very small size gives them different properties from larger molecules. The attractive tastes of salt and fat could be achieved with lower quantities if nanoparticles are used, making healthier mayonnaise or ice cream. Nanomaterials that change colour on contact with the by-products of decomposing food could be used in smart packaging.
While nanotechnology is not used in food in Britain, at least 84 food products and packagings are available worldwide. The Lords committee heard that the global market for food nanotechnology will increase from $410 million (£260 million) in 2006 to $5.8 billion by 2012.
However, the committee said that food companies had avoided discussing the products that they were developing.
“The food industry was very reluctant to put its head above the parapet and declare openly what kind of research was going on to develop nanotechnology,” said Lord Krebs, the former chairman of the Food Standards Agency, who chaired the inquiry. “Part of the reason is that it got its fingers burnt over GM technology, so it’s attempting to keep a very low profile.
“Our view is that this is exactly the wrong approach. Our view is that secrecy is more likely to generate a backlash than being open, particularly as there are potentially consumer benefits.”
