UK food institute urges cautious approach to use of nanotechnology in food
The UK's Institute of Food Science and Technology (IFST) has called for a cautious approach to the introduction of nanotechnologies in food, arguing that consumers must be assured that any such developments are necessary and safe. In an information statement on the use of nanotechnology in the food industry, published on 14 February, IFST says that most major food companies are monitoring the potential benefits of nanoscience. Kraft Foods was the first company to establish a nanotechnology laboratory in 1999, while Unilever and Nestlé both have researchers looking into the use of nanotechnology in foods. Indeed, a 2004 study by the Helmut Kaiser Consultancy suggested that more than 180 applications of nanotechnology in the food industry are at various stages of development, and that the number of patent applications in this area is growing rapidly. The sector could be worth as much as USD 20 billion by 2010, it found. '[I]n most of these applications, there would appear to be negligible safety concern,' the IFST statement reads, adding many traditional methods of food processing or cooking work on the basis of modifying naturally occurring nanostructures. There is currently insufficient evidence to suggest whether new nanotechnology applications in food will be well received by consumers, however the experience of genetically modified (GM) foods suggests that convincing people of the merits of food technology that they do not fully understand could present a considerable challenge. 'Most concern potentially centres around the possible ingestion of free nanoparticles,' the statement continues. 'This is partly because the small size of these particles may allow them to reach regions within cells or tissues that normally macroscopic particles of the same composition could not reach. Hence, the conventional toxicity tests may be inadequate [...].' As a result, the IFST believes it is necessary to treat nanoparticles as new, potentially harmful materials that require rigorous safety testing. The safety and toxicological data submitted in support of applications for authorisation should be available for peer review in the public domain, and the draft opinions of the authorising authorities should also be made public, it adds. Finally, consumer choice and safety would be enhanced with the introduction of suitable traceability and labelling provisions, the statement concludes.
Countries
United Kingdom