nanotechnologies and food discussion group minutes of the first

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 3 and 4: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 5: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

nanotechnologies and food discussion group minutes of the first

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?