More people likely to accept nano than GM, say researchers
Foods produced using emerging nanotechnology are less likely to come
up against consumer hurdles than genetically modified foods since they do
not involve tinkering with genes, and therefore have a greater perception of
naturalness, says a new paper.

The paper, to be published in the journal Trends in Food Science and
Technology, sets out to assess the factors that affect public acceptance of
innovative technologies and food products by reviewing existing literature
on the subject.

Alongside the balance between perceived risks and perceived benefits,
Michael Siegrist of the Institute for Environmental Decisions' Consumer
Behaviour unit in Zurich, Switzerland, said that the perception of
naturalness is all-important to the modern consumer, and drew upon a body of
research suggesting that almost all the associations evoked by the work
'natural' were positive.

However the actual processes involved in making the food are seen as
all-important for whether or not a food is deemed natural. For example,
chemical transformations such as the addition of fat were seen to reduce the
naturalness of a product, whereas physical transformations like grinding
were not.

The biggest reduction in naturalness came form inserting a gene from
one species into another - whereas domestication of plants or animals on the
basis of selection did not appear to pose an acceptance issue.

"This reasoning suggests that consumers may be more willing to accept
nanotechnology food than GM food," wrote Siegrist. "Since the former most
likely will not be perceived as tampering with nature, few people will have
a moral impetus to oppose this technology now."

In broad terms, nanotechnology is said to refer to an atomic or
molecular scale of between one and 100 nanometres (nm).

At present the main uses for foods are said to be in food packaging
and barrier materials, with some applications in nutraceutical delivery.
Other uses under investigation include processing - such as programming of
foods to release flavour at a particular time, or nutrients in a certain
part of the body where they can have an effect.

At a recent debate hosted by the European Food Safety Authority, which
has been charged with conducting a risk assessment of nanotechnology in
foods, Dr Frans Kampers, programme manager bio-nanotechnology at Wageningen
University, The Netherlands, pointed out, most nanoparticles in food are
actually of natural origin.

This beggars the question as to whether there is a food that isn't
nano - and indeed, whether nanotechnology should be deemed existing or new.

The author of the new paper also drew on the example of organic food
as being a way in which food technologies can be framed in ways that enhance
acceptance.

Organic food is promoted as being more natural than conventional
foods, and these positive attributed lead to the people buying them in the
belief that they are tastier and better for their health.

Such a marketing approach also allows for a premium being charged for
organic foods, which could also be extended to other production technologies
if marketed in the right way.

In conclusion, however, the researchers note that it is not just the
nature of the innovation that determines whether or not it will be accepted,
but the social, environmental and political context.

"Social amplification processes may generate public concern about
hazards that are judged as low risks by experts," wrote Siegrist, giving the
perception of GM foods in various European countries as a particular
example.

"There are presently no indications that such an amplification process
must be expected in the domain of nanotechnology food."

However the author also highlighted the importance of trust in the
food industry for foods to be accepted.

He said that the underlying technology is less important when the end
product is highly beneficial and meets consumers' needs, but they become
sceptical when it is not seen to bring any additional value to them or to
society, but just to line the pockets of producers and the food industry.

"The public may not be convinced that the values of the food industry
are the same as theirs. Therefore, a lack of trust may hamper efforts to
inform the public about the benefits of new technologies."

Dr Kampers applied the same logic to nanotechnology at the EFSA event.
He said he is convinced nanotechnology will bring big benefits to
individuals and mankind as a whole - but much depends on the perceived
risks.
[www.foodnavigator.com]