Nanotechnology in Food Products Workshop Summary (2009) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4 Educating and Informing Consumers About Applications of Nanotechnology to Food Products
4 Educating and Informing Consumers About Applications of Nanotechnology to Food Products
Pages 85-118
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 85... ...
The third and final presenter of the session, Jean Halloran of Consumers Union, provided consumer perspective insights and responses to several of the ideas and issues that other workshop presenters and attendees had raised up until that point. She commented on the difference between knowing about a technology and accepting that technology; gaps in knowledge about the safety of nanotechnologies in food; consumers' fear of the unknown, particularly in foods; the importance of regulation and how consumers need to know that they are being protected; and the importance of consumer choice.
|
From page 86... ...
Moore 2 Moore began her talk by remarking that the public knows very little about nanotechnology in food. Within her organization, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, has probably done more focus group and public opinion polling on public attitudes and perceptions, as well as how to influence those attitudes and perceptions, than any other organization.
|
From page 87... ...
20% 48% Benefits and Risks will be Impact of Familiarity Prior to Survey about equal Heard Heard Heard Heard a lot Some a little nothing 25% Benefits 49 41 24 8 outweigh Benefits/risks 33 26 29 22 equal Risks outweigh 8 8 8 5 Not sure 10 25 39 65 Risks will outweigh 7% Benefits FIGURE 4-1 How people perceive the risks and benefits of nanotechnology without being told anything about nanotechnology prior to being surveyed. The table on the lower left breaks the responses down according to how familiar with nanotechnology respondents said they were prior to the survey.
|
From page 88... ...
: • 38 percent replied "benefits and risks will be about equal"; • 30 percent replied "benefits will outweigh risks"; • 23 percent replied "risks will outweigh benefits"; and • 9 percent replied "not sure." Which will outweigh: Benefits will benefits, risks, or equal? Not outweigh Risks sure 30% 9% Impact of Familiarity Prior to Survey Heard Heard Heard Heard a lot Some a little nothing Benefits 55 45 32 19 outweigh Benefits/risks 26 28 44 40 equal Risks outweigh 16 18 17 29 Not sure 3 9 7 12 38% 23% Benefits and Risks will outweigh Risks will be Benefits about equal FIGURE 4-2 How people perceive the risks and benefits of nanotechnology after being informed about the potential risks and benefits of nanotechnology.
|
From page 89... ...
Most people learn about nanotechnology in grocery, clothing, and drug stores. Moore encouraged workshop attendees to visit http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer and browse the 800+ consumer products, particularly products in the "food and beverage" category that are self-identified as "nano" or nanotechnologybased.
|
From page 90... ...
When asked how the food supply has changed over the last five years (as part of the same 2008 survey cited previously) : • 39 percent replied that it "has become somewhat less safe"; • 22 percent replied that it "has become much less safe"; • 22 percent replied that it "has become somewhat more safe"; • 7 percent replied that it "has become much more safe"; • 6 percent replied that it "has been unchanged"; and • 4 percent replied that they were "not sure." Moore emphasized that even though these responses reflect perceptions, not necessarily reality, the results are consistent with other polling data.
|
From page 91... ...
• The U.S. public values nanotechnology medical benefits over food and nutrition.
|
From page 92... ...
Moore concluded by encouraging people to visit the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies website, where more information on the focus group and polling studies that she discussed is posted: http://www.nanotechproject.org. Moore also provided a hand-out for workshop attendees that contained some of the same data she presented.
|
From page 93... ...
" most people referred to the iPod nano (or "that iPod thing") , an answer Batt said was "sort of meaningless." So Batt and his team changed the focus of the questioning.
|
From page 94... ...
, with kind permission from Springer Science and Business Media. The finding that only a small percentage of people actually think about things on a nanoscale level, combined with the reality that the average visitor to a science museum spends less than one minute in front of any individual exhibit, became the basis for Too Small to See.
|
From page 95... ...
Also, people have a difficult time with numbers, often interpreting "billion" and "1,000,000,000" differently. As an example, Batt referred to the widespread email scam whereby somebody claiming to be from Nigeria informs the recipient that "the sum of $1,000,000,000 USD (One Million Dollars Only)
|
From page 96... ...
In addition to their difficulty with scale, many people also have a difficult time with perspective. For example, Batt showed an image of two spheres, one in the foreground and one in the background; although the spheres are the same size, the one in the background looks larger (see Figure 4-4)
|
From page 97... ...
At the nanometer scale, molecules are in constant motion. This is a very important concept and one that is also very difficult to portray.
|
From page 98... ...
. SOURCE: Reprinted from Springer, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, Volume 10, Issue 7, 2008, pages 1141-1148, Numbers, scale and symbols: the public understanding of nanotechnology, CA Batt, AM Waldron, and N Broadwater, from Figure 3, Copyright © 2008, with kind permission from Springer Science and Business Media.
|
From page 99... ...
. SOURCE: Reprinted from Springer, Journal of Nanoparticle Research Volume 10, Issue 7, 2008, pp 1141-1148, Numbers, scale and symbols: the public understanding of nanotechnology, CA Batt, AM Waldron, and N Broadwater, Copyright © 2008, with kind permission from Springer Science and Business Media.
|
From page 100... ...
Batt and colleagues also built a smaller, bilingual version of the exhibit, Too Small to See-2, which is available for tour. Nanooze and Other Nanotechnology Education Projects Batt then briefly described Nanooze, which started as a webzine in 2006 (www.nanooze.org)
|
From page 101... ...
Unlike the other prepared presentations, Halloran shared thoughts and reactions to some of the key ideas and themes of the other presentations and discussions held throughout the day. 9 Jean Halloran is Director of the Food Policies Initiative at the Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports)
|
From page 102... ...
102 NANTECHNOLOGY IN FOOD PRODUCTS known what melamine was; today the majority of people probably know what melamine is. Gaps in Scientific Knowledge About Safety Halloran remarked that scientists involved with nanotechnology have been expressing a lot of enthusiasm about what they are doing with this new technology and where nanoscience is headed.
|
From page 103... ...
Halloran also noted that the Consumers Union, which she represents, has called for a mandatory safety review for the use of nanoparticles in all cosmetic and food products. At this point, it falls on industry to ensure that products entering the market are safe, which raises another set of concerns.
|
From page 104... ...
Consumer Choice Halloran referred to the issue of choice that Moore brought up during her presentation. Consumers Union recognized the importance of this issue after some Consumer Reports testing with big commercial brand sunscreens revealed that the active ingredient in all sunscreens is either a chemical recognized by the Environmental Working Group as having some safety concerns or a nano-form of titanium dioxide or zinc oxide.
|
From page 105... ...
More specifically, discussants considered: • how consumers make new choices with new technologies; • the lack of and need for more safety data on nanomaterials with novel properties and how regulatory guidance can be provided in the absence of such data; • engaging the public in discussions about nanotechnology in food and empowering consumers; • educating the public about nanotechnology; • a comparison between consumer acceptance of nanotechnology in food and consumer acceptance of irradiation in food; • naturally occurring food nanosystems and the positive spin they give to the concept of nanotechnology in food; • second generation "nano-bio" devices being developed for the treatment of cancer and the regulatory challenges they will pose for the FDA; • the various options FDA has for providing initial guidance on nanotechnologies in food; • how other governments are dealing with these same issues; and • how the United States will handle the importation of food prod ucts constructed with nanomaterials.
|
From page 106... ...
She emphasized the necessity of having a food safety authority figure in place -- it could be the Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports) , or it could be an FDA that people feel has been adequately resourced and provided with the tools necessary for overseeing safety.
|
From page 107... ...
With nanomaterials possessing novel properties, there is going to be a lot of focus on whether the GRAS exception is applicable or whether every additive with a nanomaterial with novel properties must go through the food additive approval process. "That, to me," he said, "is a really important regulatory issue that needs to be addressed in some manner." Engaging the Public Food Forum member Ned Groth made a couple of observations and said that he hoped his comments would stimulate some response from the panel.
|
From page 108... ...
The second observation Groth made was that, while consumers may not be very good with quantitative information, they are good with skepticism. He remarked that Yada's earlier comment about how the National Nanotechnology Initiative was designed to get kids excited about nanoscience and "all of the wonderful things that nanotechnology offers" reminded him of watching a Disney movie, Our Friend the Atom, as a kid, and then seeing 15–20 years later a pamphlet on nuclear power and electricity.
|
From page 109... ...
One of the lessons learned in Europe is that unless people participate in a process and feel that their opinions and advice have some impact on the government decision-making, they feel like they are being given nothing more than a sales pitch and they become very angry. Moore expressed hope that, with new technology [i.e., not nanotechnology but new communication technology]
|
From page 110... ...
People turn to others who they think share the same values, are knowledgeable and accessible, and have your best interest in mind. Moore referred to a recent study reported in Nature Nanotechnology 10 concluding that most people form their attitudes and decisions about benefit/risk, for example whether nanotechnology is safe or unsafe, based on their "cultural cognition reality" and where they have "anchored" their trust.
|
From page 111... ...
After watching the biotech industry suffer injury for 15 years because of this, it is very clear that the first nanotechnology products that enter the market, whether they are medical care products or food packaging products (or something else) , must possess recognizable consumer benefits.
|
From page 112... ...
Porter asked if it has been presented at science teacher education conferences. Batt said yes, for example the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA)
|
From page 113... ...
Either way, the public does not get enough credit for the "reasonable and rational way" they make their back-of-the-envelope risk/benefit analyses. With irradiated food, public perception was also influenced, for example, by a Consumer Reports project on irradiated food showing that irradiated meat did taste differently, that the irradiation did not kill all bacteria and potentially created a false sense of security, and that there were other ways to make meat safer.
|
From page 114... ...
Philbert predicted that the FDA will not only have a difficult time categorizing some of these second-wave products, which fall somewhere between drugs and devices, but the agency will also have a difficult time evaluating their safety. It is very difficult to predict how the various components of many of these products break down.
|
From page 115... ...
She said that guidance makes more sense than an ANPR if for no other reason than it is easier to change than a regulation, at least at this point. She referred to Degnan's earlier comments about the importance of including questions about safety in the initial guidance and suggested that some of the questions asked at the public meeting on September 8, 2008, might serve as a good starting point.
|
From page 116... ...
Finally, Porter asked the other panelists if they knew of any other government that has moved ahead with respect to regulation of food nanotechnology. Halloran commented that the European Union (EU)
|
From page 117... ...
But the FDA needs to be prepared, he said, so that regulatory decisions are not being made in an enforcement context. Regulatory decisions need to be made in a deliberate, meaningful, structured way with respect to both statutory standards and available science.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.