Nanotechnology in Food & Agriculture - denix

More documents

Recommendations

Info

44 The right to say no to nanofoods The industry is ignoring early public concern about nanofoods Public awareness about nanotechnology remains very low. However, early surveys show that once given information about nanotechnology, people do not want to eat nanofoods or foods wrapped in packaging that contains manufactured nanomaterials. Public engagement initiatives and experimental studies suggest that once provided with information about nanotechnology, the public is concerned about many of the same issues identified in relation to GE food: a | NANOTECHNOLOGY IN FOOD & AGRICULTURE lack of transparency, a lack of choice about exposure, risks to health and the environment, unfair distribution of risks and benefits, a lack of socially useful applications and a lack of public participation in decision making (Gavelin et al. 2007; Macoubrie 2006). Public concerns about nanotechnology are greatest when nanotechnology is applied to food. Participants in a 2006 consumer conference in Germany, organised by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), expressed the most serious reservations about nanotechnology when it was applied to
foods (German FIRA 2006). A year later the BfR conducted a survey of 1,000 people and found that a majority of people not only do not personally want to eat nanofoods, but also think that nanotechnology should not be used in food applications at all. 60% of survey respondents were against the use of nano additives to prevent spices from becoming lumpy; 84% rejected the idea of using nanoparticles to make foods look appealing for longer (Halliday 2007c). A study conducted in the German speaking part of Switzerland also found that people did not want to eat nanofoods or foods wrapped in nano packaging (Siegrist et al. 2007). Similarly, a United States survey of 1,014 adults found that only 7% of respondents were currently prepared to purchase foods produced using nanotechnology. 29% would not purchase food produced using nanotechnology, while 62% wanted more information about health risks and benefits before they would consider buying nanofoods (Peter D. Hart Research Associates 2007). Yet despite early studies indicating serious public reservations about nanotechnology in food and agriculture, and a key wish for transparency to enable people to make informed food choices, the food industry is pushing ahead with the commercialisation of nanofoods, while refusing to disclose which foods products and food contact materials now contain nanomaterials. For example although BASF sells its nano synthetic lycopene to the world’s major food and beverage companies, it has refused to identify the companies to which it sells the nano lycopene or the products in which it is used (Shelke 2006). The need for greater industry transparency in its use of nanotechnology In addition to preventing people from making informed choices about whether or not they want to eat nanofoods, the food and agriculture industry’s refusal to speak publicly about its use of nanotechnology has compromised the Friends of the Earth ability of even government regulators to determine whether or not nanomaterials are already in commercial use. Whereas nanotechnology industry analysts suggest that as many as 600 nanofood products may now be commercially available (Daniells 2007), conversations with US, Australian and German food regulators reveal that they have extremely limited information about whether foods, food packaging and agricultural products now contain manufactured nanomaterials, let alone which nanomaterials are used in which products. This clearly undermines the capacity of those charged with ensuring the safety of our foods to know whether or not existing safety standards are meeting the new challenges associated with nanofoods. People’s right to make informed food choices and to say ‘no’ to nanofoods Mandatory labelling of all nanofoods is required to enable people to make an informed choice about whether or not to eat them. However beyond the need for labelling to enable informed purchasing choices, the public must be given the opportunity to be involved in decision making about the use of nanotechnology in the food and agriculture sector Given the significant implications of nanotechnology for our relationship with food and agriculture, and for food producing communities worldwide, we call for public involvement in all aspects of decision making, including the right to say no to nanofoods. NANOTECHNOLOGY IN FOOD & AGRICULTURE | 45
Page 1 and 2: OUT OF THE LABORATORY AND ONTO OUR
Page 3: OUT OF THE LABORATORY AND ONTO OUR
Page 6 and 7: 2 Executive Summary In the absence
Page 8 and 9: 4 A short introduction to nanotechn
Page 10 and 11: 6 each new nanomaterial must be sub
Page 12 and 13: 8 than 100nm. However given the evi
Page 14 and 15: 10 contain manufactured nanomateria
Page 16 and 17: 12 Nanotechnology and food processi
Page 18 and 19: 14 ingredients delivers greater bio
Page 20 and 21: 16 Table 3: Examples of chemical re
Page 22 and 23: 18 Table 6: Development of nano-com
Page 24 and 25: 20 Table 7: Nano agrochemicals unde
Page 26 and 27: 22 Nanofoods and nano agrochemicals
Page 28 and 29: 24 microparticles can be taken up t
Page 30 and 31: 26 has warned that safety regulator
Page 32 and 33: 28 amounts of a toxin, but also be
Page 34 and 35: 30 in packaging films designed to e
Page 36 and 37: 32 Time to choose sustainable food
Page 38 and 39: 34 requirements, but increase capit
Page 40 and 41: 36 University has confirmed that, c
Page 42 and 43: 38 (Section 8.3.2: paragraphs 18 &
Page 44 and 45: 40 nano form in food ingredients, a
Page 46 and 47: 42 product is considered safe. This
Page 50 and 51: 46 Recommendations for sustainable
Page 52 and 53: 48 for the food sector. Demand that
Page 54 and 55: Appendix A 50 Appendix A: List of a
Page 56 and 57: Table 3: Nanomaterials in kitchen e
Page 58 and 59: Table 4: Nanomaterials in foods and
Page 60 and 61: 56 Table 6: Nanomaterials in food/
Page 62 and 63: 58 REFERENCES Acello R. 2007. EPA r
Page 64 and 65: 60 Thamnocephalus platyurus. Chemos
Page 66: 62 Australia March 2007. Available

Nanotechnology in Food & Agriculture - denix

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?