nanotechnologies and food discussion group minutes of the first

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
2 February 2011
NANOTECHNOLOGIES
GROUP
AND FOOD DISCUSSION
MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING HELD ON 13
JANUARY 2011
Novel Foods Unit
Room 4C
Aviation House
125 Kingsway
London WC2B 6NH
Tel: (0)20 7276 8574
These Minutes are subject to confirmation by the discussion group at its next meeting

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING OF THE NANOTECHNOLOGIES AND FODO
DISCUSSION GROUP, HELD ON 13 JANUARY 2011 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 4,
AVIATION HOUSE.
Chair: Terry Donohoe (Head of Chemical Safety Division, FSA)
Present
Katy Berry (GO-Science)
Dean Burfoot (Campden BRI)
Qasim Chaudhry (FERA)
Kenneth Chinyama (FDF)
Sue Davies (Which?)
Wendy Dixon (Food Additives Branch, FSA)
Sylvia Gaysinksky (BEMA)
David Gott (Chemical Risk Assessment Unit, FSA)
Jonathan Graves (DoH)
Kathy Groves (Leatherhead Food Research)
Nigel Harrison (Defra)
Stephen Johnson (Food Additives Branch, FSA)
Andrew Kendrick (FAIA)
Nick Kernoghan (Pira International)
Sandy Lawrie (Novel Foods Unit, FSA)
Micah McGuire (Consumer Engagement Branch, FSA)
Andrew Opie (BRC)
Ed Potter (Food Contact Materials Branch, FSA)
Manisha Upadhyay (Novel Foods Unit, FSA)
Apologies
Gill Smith (HSE)
Chris Dale (BASF)
Mike Butler (Unilever)
1. Welcome and Introductions
The Chairman introduced himself and welcomed members to the group. Members
briefly introduced themselves and explained their interest in nanotechnologies and
food.
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
2. Purpose of the group
The FSA gave a short presentation, outlining the main Agency specific
recommendations from the House of Lords report into nanotechnologies and food. The
setting up of this discussion group stemmed from a recommendation from the House of
Lords and it was intended that the group will enable information to be exchanged
between different sectors in the nanotechnologies and food area in addition to helping
the FSA take forward some of the recommendations from the House of Lords report.
3. Updates from the FSA
Novel Foods
The FSA explained the main regulatory developments in the Novel Foods area.
Relating to the proposal to amend the Novel Foods Regulation, the common position of
Member States was adopted in March 2010 and this made explicit that any
nanomaterial not used before 15 May 1997 would need assessment as a novel food.
Following this, the European Parliament proposed 103 amendments on second
reading. There were however no new amendments relating to engineered
nanomaterials. The FSA explained that the proposal will undergo formal conciliation in
February/March 2011 and if agreed the new regulation might be adopted in June 2011
and come fully into effect in June 2013.
The FSA outlined the definition of engineered nanomaterial proposed in the amended
novel food regulation proposal and explained the potential difficulties relating to this in
terms of a lack of suitable methods to detect and measure nanoparticles in food and
therefore potential difficulties relating to enforcement. Nonetheless, the definition does
have the capacity to be adapted relatively easily as science progresses. In terms of the
Novel Foods Regulation, the FSA considers that a definition acts merely as a safety net
as foods produced through nanotechnologies will be caught by the scope of the
regulation either because they are novel or because they are produced using a new
production process.
The FSA informed the group that in October 2010, DG SANCO issued a draft generic
definition of “nanomaterial” drawing on advice from SCENIHR (the EU scientific
committee on emerging and newly identified health risks) which went out to
consultation. UK Government Departments responded to this consultation by raising a
number of questions relating to limitations in current measurement techniques, the
possibility that existing materials which contain a very small proportion of a nanoscaled
element may be unnecessarily classed as nanomaterials, and the lower size limit of
1nm.
Food additives and food contact materials
There were no new developments since the publication of the House of Lords report,
except that the revised framework for the regulation of food additives came into effect in
January 2010 and the draft legislation on plastic food contact materials was near to
being formally adopted.
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Consumer Engagement
The FSA explained to the group that a series of nanotechnologies and food citizens
forums had been taking place since November 2010. The forums have been organised
by the FSA and TNS/BMRB as a tool to discuss policy work with consumers and
examine awareness and attitudes towards nanotechnologies and food. The forums are
designed very much to gain a qualitative insight into consumer attitudes towards
nanotechnologies rather than to produce hard statistics. The forums involved one
hundred people in England, and Scotland. Participants were recruited to reflect a mix of
race, age and socioeconomic backgrounds and are being conducted in three waves
(waves one and two are complete and wave three will take place in January/February).
Most people had never heard of nanotechnologies in relation to food but were more
aware of its use for other areas of technology e.g. nano iPods.
Consumers were interested to know why nanotechnologies are needed in food uses
and were better able to appreciate the potential benefits of nanotechnologies in relation
to food packaging than food itself. They were concerned about safety aspects of
nanotechnologies, particularly the long-term safety, and about the environmental
impact in relation to food packaging e.g. the use of plastic beer bottles with nanoclay
embedded in the plastic as a means of preventing beer spoilage.
The final wave of this research will look at what ethical issues there may be and any
wider implications that need to be considered. Consumers will then be in a better
position to provide a more reasoned argument about their views. It is expected that the
TNS/BMRB report on these forums will be published by mid March and the FSA will
enquire whether a representative is available to give a presentation at the next
discussion group meeting.
Action: FSA to ask TNS/BMRB to give a presentation to the discussion group.
EFSA’s guidance on the risk assessment of applications of nanoscience and
nanotechnologies to food and feed.
The FSA mentioned to the group that at the request of the European Commission,
EFSA’s Scientific Committee was producing practical guidance on the risk assessment
of applications of nanoscience and nanotechnologies to food and feed. The Scientific
Committee’s drafting group had prepared this draft guidance which was shortly
expected to go out to public consultation. This guidance builds on EFSA’s previous
opinion on nanotechnologies and food published in 2009, but is a more practical and
pragmatic document aimed at risk assessors and applicants. The guidance details the
approaches to risk assessment and appropriate testing methods to be used depending
on:
a. Whether a material is nano or not
b. If there is exposure to the nanomaterial e.g. migration into food.
c. If the nanoform has an already approved non nanoform of the material.
d. If the nanoform does not have an already approved nanoform of the material.
To note: EFSA’s draft guidance was published on 14 January 2011 for public
consultation.
4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
4. Updates from other Members
Which?
Which? informed the group of consumer research it had carried out in May 2010 which
included the general tracking of consumer awareness of nanotechnologies. Only 37%
had heard of nanotechnologies and most people were aware mostly of technology type
applications, only 8% were aware of possible food applications. Which? reported on a
FAO conference which took place in June 2010 (the international conference on food
and agriculture applications of nanotechnologies) and mentioned that a substantial
amount of nanotechnologies research in the food area appears to be taking place in S.
America compared to the EU. Details of the conference can be found at
http://www.nanoagri2010.com/
Which? was interested to know how closely the UK Government is working with other
Governments in this area.
Food and Drink Federation
FDF informed the group that it had been disappointed by the way the House of Lords
report was launched in that the press release criticised industry for not being
transparent about its research interests, picking this out as the key point. This
distracted from the body of the report, which was both reasonable and informative.
FDF held a meeting of interested members from both scientific and public affairs
perspectives in February 2010 to consider the report, reactions to it, and how FDF
would respond to future developments. Some of the key findings of this meeting were:
Some companies are engaging in research into applications of
nanotechnologies, including the use of nanoscience to achieve a better
understanding of food technology and enhance the ability to manipulate
ingredients and the constituent properties of the food. This does not imply the
use of engineered nanoparticles.
Research projects with the potential to lead to new product developments are by
their nature competitive and confidential so cannot be placed in the public
domain.
Members of the Select Committee appeared to have an unrealistic expectation
of research into nanotechnology applications in food in the UK and may have
interpreted lack of reported research as a lack of transparency.
Companies are being approached by suppliers offering products of
nanotechnology, but are not yet using them in the EU. Some applications may,
however, be of future interest.
In terms of the perception that industry was already placing products of
nanotechnologies on the EU market without declaring their use, members
suggested that it should be made clear that the EU regulatory regime prevents
manufacturers from placing products using nanotechnologies on the market until
they have been positively assessed by EFSA.
Members reviewed a paper setting out FDF’s activities and engagement on
nanotechnologies to date and supported the level of activity.
5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
FDF also informed the group that it held a meeting with Lord Krebs in May 2010
specifically to discuss the Select Committee’s report. FDF has continued to engage
with key stakeholders and has focused on encouraging the development of a strong
regulatory framework for nanotechnologies and food.
Leatherhead Food Research (LFR)
LFR informed the group that there has not been much movement from industry in the
nanotechnologies area, possibly due to concern about public reaction. There has also
been concern from industry about implications of possible changes to legislation that
may unnecessarily have an impact on “non-nano foods”. Industry recognises the need
to increase consumer awareness about food manufacture and nanotechnologies and
awareness of the difference between natural and engineered nanomaterials. LFR has
collaborated with NanoKTN and NanoCentral to run four workshops:
1. Nanocoatings and food contact materials (8 June 2010)
2. Nanotechnology in Foods: Advances in Ingredient Functionality, 15 September
2010.
3. House of Lords report one year on (19 January 2011)
4. Enhancing the Health and Nutritional Benefits of Food Products through
Nanotechnology (2 March 2011).
Labelling of foods produced using nanotechnologies
Defra informed the group that the Food Information Regulation (FIR) is being
developed in Brussels and this will replace and update existing EU legislation on food
labelling. The European Parliament has proposed a series of amendments including a
requirement for engineered nanomaterials to be highlighted as ingredients on food
labels, and this has been accepted by Member States. The next stage is for the
amended proposal to go through second reading by the European Parliament. Defra
highlighted that any proposal to label engineered nanomaterials is dependent on
having an agreed definition.
Which? supported labelling of nano ingredients in foods in the ingredients list which
should not be perceived as a warning to consumers but rather as a means to allow
consumers to make informed choices relating to food, backed up with broader
consumer information Which? also mentioned that there is a need for openness relating
to nano-food applications to avoid labelling being discussed as an abstract issue with
no relevance to real products.
The group generally agreed that a distinction needs to be made between engineered
and naturally occurring nanomaterials and highlighted that the labelling should only be
required for the former.
6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
5. Taking forward specific recommendations from the House of Lords Report
Confidential database of research being carried out by industry (recommendation
10)
The FSA introduced this item prior to group discussion. This was the only
recommendation in the report the Agency did not fully accept. While the FSA
recognized the importance of gathering intelligence about future developments to
identify and respond to emerging risks, it did not feel that the mandatory approach was
the best way to take this recommendation forward. The FSA Board had agreed that this
recommendation would be taken forward by way of an intelligence gathering scheme
for nanomaterials in general rather than by way of a database. The Government
response to the House of Lords and the UK nanotechnologies strategy indicated that
this recommendation would be taken forward in collaboration with other Government
Departments but the extent to which the collaboration would take place could not be
confirmed as the position of the new Government on the UK nanotechnologies strategy
has not yet been confirmed.
The group discussed various options for taking forward this recommendation. Fera
highlighted that lessons need to be drawn from Defra’s voluntary reporting scheme for
nanomaterials that received only 13 submissions.. Which? would prefer a mandatory
scheme. The FSA explained that the previous Government had rejected the idea of a
mandatory scheme, which would require a new legislative framework.
Some members of the group by and large preferred the use of the term “horizon
scanning” rather than “intelligence gathering’. Information on research should not be
restricted soley to the UK, although there could be difficulties in gathering information
from outside the EU.
LFR suggested that the FSA could meet confidentially with key players in the nano and
food research sector as a way of gaining further understanding of activities in this area.
The group discussed confidentiality, noting that the FSA is a public body that is subject
to Freedom of Information. Some suggested that possible approaches might be for the
FSA to enter into non-disclosure agreements, or to produce a formal note outlining the
Agency’s obligations in terms of confidentiality.
(Action: FSA to check the feasibility of these approaches).
There was a discussion on whether the FSA is the best organisation to take forward
this recommendation. LFR suggested that in order to encourage participation of
industry in such a scheme, the benefits for industry need to be clearly set out as does
the purpose of such a scheme and what the Agency will do with any gathered
information. Which? enquired whether the FSA is intending to approach specific
sectors e.g. the supplements industry.
The FSA agreed to draw up a more concrete proposal to take forward this
recommendation, for discussion at the next meeting of the group.
(Action: FSA to draw up a proposal to take forward this recommendation).
7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Register of nano-foods, additives and food contact materials that have been
approved by EFSA (recommendation 26)
The FSA introduced this item prior to group discussion. The FSA explained that as
mentioned in the Government response, the Agency accepted this recommendation but
the register could also include products that may be classed as nano for various
reasons e.g. products that may fall within a grey area.
The group agreed it should be determined first and foremost what the purpose was and
who the list was intended for.. The group discussed whether the register should simply
be a list or a more general source of information, e.g. the nature of the nanomaterial,
where is it found, what is it used for, how long has it been used etc.. It was suggested
that the list should focus on engineered nanomaterials.
Some of the group questioned whether such a list was still necessary given the
amended FIR proposal which, if adopted, will result in engineered nanomaterials being
indicated on ingredient lists. Some members of the group questioned the term “nanofoods”
pointing out that the issue is about foods containing nanomaterials. Any register
would therefore be another version of EFSA’s approved list which may have gone
through the novel foods process hence an unnecessary duplication and use of
resources.
The FSA said it would draw up a more concrete proposal on taking forward this
recommendation based on the group’s ideas for discussion at the next meeting.
AOB
Action: FSA to draw up a more concrete proposal to take forward this
recommendation.
Group membership: The FSA asked the group any additional representation was
required. Which? suggested that it may be useful for a representative from the
Enforcement Authorities to participate in the group given the commitment to keep
enforcement officers informed about nanotechnologies and food.
GO-Science suggested that representative from the Department for Business
Innovation and Skills (BIS) could be invited, given their involvement in research funding
the support for innovation.
7. Date of next meeting
Action: FSA to consider whether to invite representatives from
Enforcement Authorities and BIS.
The FSA suggested that the next meeting will take place in approximately 2 months,
after the TNS/BMRB report on nanotechnologies citizens forums is published. Further
details would be circulated to the group shortly.
8