Nanotechnologies and Food
CHAPTER 1: Introduction
1.1. Humans have used technologies to modify
their food ever since they invented cooking about 300,000 years
ago. The dawn of agriculture approximately 10,000 years ago brought
with it a host of new technologies, including selective breeding
to enhance crop and livestock yields, and techniques of preservation
such as salting, drying, and smoking. The industrialisation of
food manufacture in the 19th century led to further innovations
in processing and storage, such as canning and freezing, and this
continues up to the present day.
1.2. New technologies have sometimes met resistance
when first introduced. For instance, the mandatory pasteurisation
of milk, which when introduced prevented in the region of 2,500
deaths from bovine tuberculosis a year in the United Kingdom,
was fiercely resisted in the 1930s and 1940s, in the face of strong
scientific evidence for the health benefits. More recently, the
introduction of genetic modification into food production continues
to meet with strong resistance in some parts of the world. Other
technologies have been received without any protest, for example
the introduction of pre-packaged frozen or chilled 'ready' meals.
1.3. In this report we examine some of the issues
related to the introduction of nanotechnologies into food production,
a development that is still in its infancy but is projected to
grow rapidly in the next few years. While the use of nanotechnologies
in areas such as the electronic, chemical and pharmaceutical industries
has been widely discussed, the extent to which these technologies
are used, or might be used, in the food sector has received less
attention.
Background
1.4. The presence of nanomaterials in food is
not new. Some traditional food manufacturing processes result
in the creation of nano-sized particles—for example, production
of ricotta cheese involves allowing whey proteins to aggregate
into protein nanoparticles (p 246) and production of chocolate
and ice cream using natural ingredients involves changes to food
structures at the nanoscale. But, historically, this has been
done without an understanding of the changes that occur at this
level. Since 1999, when the first commercial nanotechnology laboratory
was set up, food companies have been researching applications
of nanoscience and nanotechnologies with a view to the deliberate
manipulation of food at the nanoscale. It is this development
which we decided to consider more closely.
1.5. When new technologies are introduced, the
potential benefits must be weighed against the possible risks.
Opinion about the use of nanotechnologies in the food sector is
divided: we have heard evidence from witnesses who oppose their
introduction and from those who are advocates of their development.
An important aspect of our inquiry therefore has been to consider
how the potential benefits of nanotechnologies might be achieved
whilst addressing concerns about health and safety risks (both
known and unknown), appropriate regulatory oversight, and effective
mechanisms for public communication.
1.6. Consumers are particularly sensitive about
new technologies involving the scientific manipulation of food
and understandably cautious about their introduction. The public
response to the development of genetically modified food illustrates
how quickly the views of some sectors of the public can change
if action is not taken to meet concerns they may have about a
new food technology. Part of our motivation, therefore, in examining
the issues surrounding the use of nanotechnologies in the food
sector is to identify mechanisms for enabling the public to make
informed decisions about the impact and changes that nanotechnologies
might bring.
Scope of the inquiry
1.7. Our inquiry follows a number of other reports
on nanotechnology, including those by the Royal Society and Royal
Academy of Engineering, the Council for Science and Technology,
and the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. These earlier
reports have not focussed specifically on food, but some of their
conclusions are echoed in our report. In our inquiry we have not
confined our investigation solely to instances where nanomaterials
are used as an ingredient of a food product itself. Nanotechnologies
can be applied in the food sector in other ways which might result
in their ingestion by consumers. We have therefore also looked
at the use of nanotechnologies in pesticides and fertilizers,
in food manufacturing processes and in food contact packaging.
Given the width of our inquiry, we decided that we should not
extend it into areas such as the environmental impact of the application
of nanotechnologies in the food sector, or their use in products
which, although not food, might lead to ingestion of nanomaterials
(such as toothpaste), or cosmetics. In excluding these areas,
we intend neither to diminish their importance nor to suggest
that they should not be the subject of inquiry in the future.
Structure of the Report
1.8. In Chapter 2 we briefly consider the meaning
of nanoscience and associated concepts, and the development of
nanoscale scientific investigation over the past few decades.
In Chapter 3 we set out the current, and potential, uses of nanotechnologies
in the food sector. We also consider what factors might influence
the further development of their application in the United Kingdom,
including measures that could be taken by the Government. In Chapter
4, we consider the health and safety aspects of the use of nanotechnologies,
including the knowledge gaps which prevent a fully informed assessment
of risk. We look at steps the Government have taken to address
these knowledge gaps, and at whether more can be done.
1.9. In Chapters 5 and 6, we consider the current
regulatory regime governing the use of nanotechnologies in the
food sector, asking whether it meets the dual purpose of protecting
consumers whilst enabling scientists to continue to develop nanotechnologies,
and whether it is effective in practice. Finally, in Chapter 7
we address issues relating to communication and public engagement.
Acknowledgements
1.10. The membership and interests of the sub-committee
are set out in Appendix 1 and those who submitted written
and oral evidence are listed in Appendix 2. The call for
evidence with which we launched our inquiry is reprinted in Appendix
3. In March 2009 we held a seminar to which academics, representatives
from Government departments and a variety of other organisations
contributed. A note of the seminar is set out in Appendix 4.
In May 2009 we visited Unilever's Research and Development Facility
in Colworth, Bedfordshire. A note of the visit is set out in Appendix 5.
In June 2009 we visited Washington DC in the United States. A
note of the visit is set out in Appendix 6. We would like to thank
all those who assisted us in our work.
1.11. Finally, we are very grateful to our Specialist
Adviser, Professor Stephen Holgate, Professor of Immunopharmacology
at the University of Southampton, for his expertise and guidance
throughout this inquiry. We stress however that the conclusions
we draw and recommendations we make are ours alone.
|
