Is Food Nanotech Withering on the Vine?

“What was going on five or six years ago, researchers in most universities and also in the private sector were jumping on the nanotechnology bandwagon. It was kind of a buzzword. They were working on projects that only a few years before they were not using the word nanotechnology to describe,” said Paul Thompson, PhD, a professor of agricultural, food, and resource economics at Michigan State University in East Lansing. Dr. Thompson is a philosopher who has dedicated his career to studying technological controversies in agriculture and food science.

According to Dr. Thompson, the use of the term nanotechnology to describe certain types of food chemistry work created a negative impression, and the industry seems to have responded by moving away from that specific terminology.

“There’s a set of real risks versus perceptual risks,” said Sintuu. According to Sintuu, the real risks of nanotechnology are comparable to any other new product that is going on the market for human use. Any novel technology that will be ingested by the public has a potential risk associated with it. The perceived risks, however, have become the larger issue in the nanotechnology industry. Because there are no nanotech-specific regulations, the perception is that any and all nanotechnology is harmful, regardless of whether or not there is scientific data to back up that assumption.

“There’s a huge knowledge gap,” said Sintuu. “Well-characterized tests need to be developed to more accurately determine what the real risks are; at the same time, a comprehensive process to educate consumers and ensure their concerns are addressed is necessary in order to keep any perceptual risks at bay.” In addition, Sintuu added, successful management of nanotechnology risks requires the cooperation of government agencies, academic institutions, non-government organizations, and technology developers to adopt an integrative “open risk management” approach to nanotechnology risk management.

The FDA established a nanotechnology task force in 2006 to address those policy gaps. The FDA told Food Quality in an email that it is preparing a food ingredient guidance document that would address some nanotechnology issues and is hoping to publish it in the near future. The agency declined to discuss any details of that document before publication.

A 2007 task force report recommended that the FDA issue guidance for the use of nanomaterials in a broad range of products, whether subject to premarket clearance or not. On the other hand, the task force also concluded that the evidence did not merit mandatory labeling. “Because the current science does not support a finding that classes of products with nanoscale materials necessarily present greater safety concerns than classes of products without nanoscale materials,” said the report, “the Task Force does not believe there is a basis for saying that, as a general matter, a product containing nanoscale materials must be labeled as such. Therefore the Task Force is not recommending that the agency require such labeling at this time.”

Across the pond, the European Commission has called for a consultation to define “nanomaterials,” which will help set the stage for new regulations pertaining to nanofoods. “The definition of the term ‘nanomaterial’ should be based on available scientific knowledge and should be used for regulatory purposes,” according to a statement on the initiative. “The definition should determine when a material should be considered as a nanomaterial for legislative and policy purposes in the European Union.”