Article on Nanofoods Draws Lessons from GMO Debate

A recent article published in Nature Nanotechnology examines how governments, scientists and food companies can better anticipate the public reaction to nanofoods based on lessons learned from the commercialization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Timothy V. Duncan, “The communication challenges presented by nanofoods,” Nature Nanotechnology, October 2011.

Authored by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) research chemist Timothy
Duncan, the article argues that individual receptiveness to nanotechnology
applications depend, not just on scientific evidence, but on myriad factors
such as “cultural worldview, religiosity, governance philosophy, knowledge
and familiarity level, trust (in government, scientists or industry), emotion,
age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, general knowledge of/attitude
towards science, and awareness of previous technology-based controversies.”
In particular, Duncan warns that the failure of governments and industry to
account for these factors in the past has left consumers even more wary of
processes like genetic engineering which are seen, however erroneously, as
“tampering with nature.”

“Attitudes towards new food technologies, therefore, are often not formed by
objective assessments of their sensory characteristics, nutritive value or safety,
and they are extremely susceptible to damage by negative emotions and bad
publicity,” Duncan writes. “Experts and laypeople assess nanotechnology risks
differently. Thus, some scientists may become frustrated when the public’s
worries about naturalness or other social issues divert attention away from
scientifically grounded efforts to probe the risks that nanofoods pose to
human health and the environment. Nevertheless, public acceptability will
ultimately depend on what the public perceives the risks of nanofoods to be,
irrespective of what scientists determine, and so stakeholders ignore ethical
and social concerns at their peril.”

When it comes to introducing new nanofoods, Duncan suggests that companies supplement their usual science-based approach with a greater attention to how consumers perceive risk and how media coverage of controversies or adverse events plays into these perceptions. To this end, he urges industry to implement strategies designed to build public trust by (i) using trade associations to address “fundamental, deep-rooted social concerns about nanofoods while protecting the images of individual corporations”; (ii) avoiding “unnecessary secrecy, opaque behavior and unprofessional risk-communication strategies”; (iii) “collaborating with social scientists to define naturalness in the context of nanofoods and to determine which consumer demographics are more likely to be sensitive to this issue”; (iv) “actively participating in the formulation and delivery of public engagement exercises instead of relying on program reports or summaries after the fact”; and (v) “establishing an enforceable, transparent and inclusive process of self-regulation through a comprehensive, universal voluntary code of conduct that would not only encourage open cooperation with governments to address the physical risks of nanofoods, but also take ethical and social concerns, and regional or cultural sensitivities into consideration when developing or marketing new products.”

According to Duncan, adopting some or all of these recommendations could help companies avoid what he describes as “the mishandling of previous food technology debates (such as GMOs),” which has left nanofoods at a disadvantage in public opinion. Commending recent efforts to engage with the public before commercialization of nanoproducts, Duncan nevertheless cautions that the media remain an unpredictable factor in this equation. “[I]t is an open question whether media coverage will continue to provide a balanced portrayal of the potential benefits and risks posed by the incorporation of engineered nanomaterials into food and food-related products,” he concludes, “or whether a gradual change to exaggerated headlines will lead to ripple effects that endanger not only the future of nanofoods, but also the future of nanotechnology as a whole.”