CHAPTER 3: Nanotechnologies in the Food
Sector
Current uses
3.1. It is difficult to gauge precisely the extent
to which nanotechnologies are being used in the food sector, either
in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. According to the Food Standards
Agency (FSA), "it is not possible to provide a definitive
list of nanofoods and nanoscale food contact materials on the
EU market, primarily because of the absence of an EU-wide register
or inventory" (p 2). Underlying this practical difficulty
is the more fundamental issue of the absence of a common definition
(discussed in Chapter 5) of nanotechnologies and nanomaterials"It
is this ambiguity", Professor Richard Jones, Professor of
Physics at the University of Sheffield, suggested, which "lies
behind the difference in opinion about how widespread the use
of nanotechnology in food is" (p 245). Nonetheless,
there is somealbeit only indicativeevidence of the
current use of nanotechnologies in the food sector.
FOOD PRODUCTS AND SUPPLEMENTS
3.2. In the United States, the Project on Emerging
Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for
Scholars (PEN) maintains an on-line global database of consumer
products which are claimed by their producers to include some
form of nanotechnology in their manufacture. According to PEN,
in March 2009 there were 84 food-related items on the database
of which nine were listed as used in cooking, 20 were used for
food storage and 44 were categorised as dietary supplements (p 333).
Three products listed were entered as foods (an oil containing
nano-encapsulated ingredients, a milkshake that uses a nanoscale
silica-based compound to enhance the taste and a tea that claims
to use a non-disclosed form of nanotechnology). But, despite the
database, PEN concluded that it was "currently unknown how
many nanotechnology-enabled food products are on the market that
are not clearly identified" (p 333).
3.3. The FSA raised doubts about how much current
registers or databases could tell us. This was because they would
be "largely based on marketing information, which may or
may not accurately reflect what is on the market" (p 2).
They were aware of only two uses of nanotechnologies in the United
Kingdom food sector: a form of nanosilver known as "silver
hydrosol" and a nano-sized formulation of co-enzyme Q10.
Both were used in food supplements. The Food and Drink Federation
(FDF) said that they knew of no food products on the market produced
by any of their member companies which contained or were packaged
in or had used nanotechnologies in their production (p 75).
There were, the FDF claimed, only a small number of products available
in the United Kingdom, including food supplements and packaging,
that claimed to be 'nano'. Dr Mike Knowles, Vice-President
for Global Scientific and Regulatory Affairs for the Coca Cola
Company, suggested that the extent to which nanotechnologies were
used in the food industry had been overstated: "the publicity
given to the application of nanotechnologies in food suggests
there are many current applications on the market, but this is
contrary to our understanding and knowledge of the situation"
(Q 156). According to the US Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), the situation is similar in the United States. There are
only a few food products available which involve nanotechnologies,
mostly in the form of dietary supplements (see Appendix 6).
FOOD ADDITIVES
3.4. Some nanomaterials have been used in food
processing for a number of years in the form of additives, substances
which have little or no nutritional value but assist in the processing
itself. For example, silica is used as an anti-caking agent to
keep powders flowing freely. Dr Sandy Lawrie, Head of Novel
and GM Food Safety at the FSA, explained that one type of silica
used this way, fumed silica, is manufactured in a way "that
does result undoubtedly in nanoparticles", although "the
extent of the use of fumed silica is something which the industry
has not yet been able to confirm with us" (Q 628).
FOOD CONTACT MATERIALS
3.5. According to the FSA, very few food contact
materials containing a nanomaterial component were available in
the United Kingdom and European Union markets: "most products
were found on the American and Asian markets" (p 3).
Other witnesses agreed that the number of products was small,
albeit increasing (Q 104, pp 102, 104).
3.6. Examples of food contact materials using
nanotechnologies include those where the application of nanotechnology
has enabled the development of improved barrier properties. The
Institute of Food Science and Technology (IFST) described a plastic
bottle which incorporated nanoparticles as a gas barrier (p 310)
and suggested that the use of such packaging was "increasing"
(p 310). Dr Knowles said that the European Food Safety
Authority had recently reviewed, and endorsed, two applications
for packaging made with nanotechnologies (Q 158). A plastic
beer bottle made using clay nanoparticles as a gas barrier to
improve shelf-life is currently on the market in the EU (pp 75,
292) and the US (Q 104). Other food contact products containing
a nanomaterial include chopping boards and food containers infused
with nanosilver because of its anti-microbial properties (p 333).
AGRICULTURE
3.7. According to the evidence we received, nanotechnologies
are not currently used within the United Kingdom agricultural
sector. The Department for Environment, Food and Agriculture (DEFRA)
said that the development of "smart nanoscale pesticides"
was still at the research and development phase; and they were
"not aware of any plans for manufactured nanomaterials to
be included in fertilisers by manufacturers" (p 47).
In contrast, in the United States, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is considering three applications for licences for
the use of pesticides manufactured using nanotechnologies (see
Appendix 6 and paragraph 5.18).
Potential applications
FOOD PRODUCTS AND FOOD SUPPLEMENTS
3.8. Nanotechnologies create the possibility
of foods with new flavours and textures, and also healthier food
products with reduced salt, fat or sugar content or increased
vitamin and nutrient content (QQ 87, 177, 224, 281). The
FDF described, for example, the wide-ranging benefits of nano-encapsulation:
"[it] offers the ability to deliver smaller
quantities of ingredients in a way that maintains flavour and
texture properties of the food whilst reducing the content of
ingredients that consumers are encouraged to eat less, such as
salt and fats. Ingredients such as flavourings and micronutrients
could also be protected until ready for release into the food,
thus maintaining the quality of the ingredient for longer shelf-life."
(p 75)
3.9. Whilst not challenging the capabilities
of nanotechnologies, some witnesses expressed reservations about
their potential effects. Ms Georgia Miller, Coordinator of the
Friends of the Earth Nanotechnology Project, for example, questioned
whether their use might lead to increased consumption of highly
processed foods: "Will the addition of nano-additives to
junk foods enable them to be marketed for health values, for example
increased nano-encapsulated omega-3 or iron fortification?"
(Q 286)
MANUFACTURING
3.10. Nanotechnologies also have potential for
use in food manufacturing processes. Ms Kathy Groves, Principal
Microscopist at Leatherhead Food International, for example, referred
to nanomaterials being used to develop anti-microbial and anti-stick
surfaces (thereby reducing the tendency for machinery to clog
and, as a result, the amount of downtime required for cleaning)
(Q 87); and Dr Knowles commented on the benefits of
nano-coatings "in terms of protecting against contamination
by films being built up on food processing machinery surfaces"
(Q 158).
FOOD CONTACT MATERIALS
3.11. We also received a range of evidence about
how nanotechnologies might be used in food packaging. The Royal
Society of Chemistry (RSC), for example, suggested that "new
materials based on nanotechnology, with increased strength, offer
the potential to reduce packaging waste" (p 236) by
allowing packaging to be made thinner and lighter. Dr George
Kellie, Chairman of Microflex Technologies Limited (Q 159)
and Ms Sue Davies, Chief Policy Adviser at Which? consumer
organisation, (Q 281) agreed. On the other hand Professor Jones
was less optimistic: in his view, the incorporation of nanotechnologies
in packaging might increase the complexity of packaging materials
which might, in turn, increase waste and make them harder to recycle
(p 247).
3.12. Dr Kellie said that nanotechnologies
could enhance the barrier properties of packaging by better controlling
the passage of gases and moisture. This would not only improve
the shelf-life of food, but would also allow food products to
"retain their shelf-life under ambient conditions
we do not have to expend energy to retain the product under frozen
or chilled conditions" (Q 159). Other witnesses agreed
(QQ 5, 102). Dr Paul Butler, Director of Packaging Materials
and Technologies Limited, suggested that nanotechnologies could
allow the development of packaging that was "more communicative
and informative to the consumer" (QQ 87, 102); and looking
further into the future, Dr Knowles referred to how nanotechnologies
might enable the incorporation of "sensors in the packaging
which may detect deterioration in [food] quality" (Q 158)
resulting in more accurate sell-by dates for perishable foods
which would, in turn, improve food safety and reduce wastage (QQ 102,
162, 281).
AGRICULTURE
3.13. A report for the European Union funded
ObservatoryNANO project, Nanotechnology Developments in the
Agrifood Sector, published in April 2009, identified a number
of potential applications for nanotechnologies in the agricultural
sector. They included novel delivery systems for the more effective
use of pesticides and the development of slow release fertilizers.
The report suggested that nanotechnology could enable smaller
and less frequent applications of agricultural chemicals, thereby
reducing residents' and bystander exposure and contamination of
local environments.[2]
THE WIDER CONTEXT
3.14. Some witnesses saw nanotechnologies in
terms of their potential in delivering wider societal benefits.
Dr Frans Kampers, Director of BioNT (a centre for bionanotechnology)
at Wageningen University and Research Centre in the Netherlands,
for example, argued that "food is a very important component
of [the] preventative healthcare system paradigm" (Q 87)
and that the food industry, in looking at technologies to help
individuals get the nutrients they need to stay healthy, might
contribute to reducing healthcare costs. Mr Andrew Opie,
Food Policy Director at the British Retail Consortium (BRC), agreed,
suggesting that retailers saw the potential of nanotechnologies
in assisting customers "to meet some of the targets in nutrition
and health" (Q 159). Ms Davies pointed to the potential
role of nanotechnologies in tackling food policy issues such as
obesity, diet-related disease and food safety (Q 281). The
potential contribution of nanotechnologies to the wider environmental
agenda through reducing packaging and food waste or pesticide
use was also acknowledged by a number of witnesses (see paragraphs
3.11 and 3.12 above).
Projected growth of nanotechnologies
in the food sector
3.15. Whilst the potential applications of nanotechnologies
in the food sector appear to be significant, their projected rate
of development and the timescale within which they might be applied
in the market is not clear. A number of witnesses told us that
work in the United Kingdom is still at an early phase and that
further underpinning research is needed to understand the structure
of food at the nanoscale and how to manipulate it (QQ 4,
607, p 203). The same is true at the European Union level (pp 3,
74, 363, Q 101). Dr Andrew Wadge, Director of Food Safety
and Chief Scientist at the FSA, was clear, however, that although
there is little on the market at present, the FSA "fully
expect that to change" (Q 42).
3.16. Food packaging involving the use of nanomaterials
seems to be the most likely application to appear first in the
mass market (CSL). According to Dr Knowles, "advances
in packaging are the ones which are most advanced in terms of
real applications" (Q 158); and Dr Kellie predicted
that the next five years would be "an explosive period of
development" for food packaging (Q 164). Nano-coatings
for food preparation surfaces and machinery are also predicted
in the next five years (p 51).
3.17. Given the current state of the science,
the availability of healthier food as a result of the application
of nanotechnologies is anticipated in the relatively near future
by professionals working in the field. Professor Vic Morris,
Partnership Leader at the Institute of Food Research, suggested
that "in five to ten years time" there was "a real
prospect that nanoscience understanding of food will have generated
a range of new foods that have health benefits" (Q 154).
Dr Kampers said that, by then, "we will see improvements
in food safety
We will see better packaging materials and
increased shelf life
and we will see products that deliver
specific nutrients to individuals" (Q 154). Dr Knowles
thought that foods with an altered texture, or food modified to
have a reduced salt or fat content or to enhance, satiety were
near to appearing on the market (Q 165).
3.18. As stated in paragraph 3.7, pesticides
using nanomaterials are currently being considered for approval
for use by the EPA in the United States; if approval is granted,
it may well be that their use in the United Kingdom will shortly
follow, given that such products are currently being developed
here (p 24).
3.19. As for the economic impact of nanotechnology
in the food sector, Cientifica's 2007 report predicted that the
value of products containing nanotechnologies in the food sector
worldwide would grow "from $410 million in 2006 to $5.8 billion
in 2012" (p 51), a growth of 1,400 per cent within 6
years. Evidence from Japan indicates that the market for food
containing nanotechnology in that country is expected to grow
rapidly over the next decade, from one billion yen ($11 million)
in 2005 to 20 billion yen ($220 million) in 2010, to 150 billion
yen ($1.65 trillion) in 2020 (pp 20-21). It has been estimated
that up to 400 companies worldwide are currently undertaking research
into the applications of nanotechnologies in food or food packaging[3]
and a search of patents by Cientifica in 2007 found 464 separate
entries relating to applications of nanotechnology in food or
food contact packaging.[4]
As for the potential market growth for nanotechnologies in
the food sector in the United Kingdom, we acknowledge that a number
of factors make predicting future market conditions difficult[5],
for example the uncertainty over consumer reaction to nanotechnologies.
State of the industry
3.20. Most investment in the United Kingdom into
the development of nanotechnologies for use in the food sector
is by the industry (QQ 572-573). Research by food companies
into the uses and applications of nanotechnologies in the food
industry began about 10 years ago. In 1999, Kraft foods established
the first nanotechnology laboratory and in 2000 the company set
up a 'Nanotek' consortium, involving 15 universities worldwide
and national research laboratories (p 311). However, the
evidence we received showed that the food industry, both in the
United Kingdom and abroad, has been unwilling to provide information
about its activities since these developments (see paragraphs
7.15 to 7.19). As a result, it has not been easy for us to ascertain
the progress that has been made by the industry in recent years
or the level of investment that the United Kingdom food industry
has put into commercialising the application of nanotechnologies.
3.21. Based on the relatively limited amount
of evidence we received, our impression is that research in the
United Kingdom into the application of nanotechnologies in the
food sector has proceeded relatively slowly in comparison with
research into applications of nanotechnologies in other industrial
sectors. Ms Groves described nanotechnology research in the food
sector as being at a "very early" stage (Q 101).
The FDF concurred: "we believe the UK to be at the cutting
edge of R&D in nanotechnologies in general
Applications
in food, food production and food packaging are currently limited
by comparison with applications in other industry sectors"
(p 76).
3.22. In contrast, the United Kingdom is seen
to have a strong research base in food nanoscience (the understanding
of how food is structured at the nanoscale, as opposed to the
actual application of nanotechnologies). For example, the Institute
of Food Research (IFR) told us that the United Kingdom "has
played a leading role in the understanding of the functionality
of foods at a molecular level" (p 55); and the IFST
said that the IFR was in the forefront of this area of research,
along with the Universities of Leeds and Nottingham (p 311).
3.23. A number of witnesses suggested that companies
outside the United Kingdom were taking a more active role in researching
and developing applications of nanotechnologies in food. Dr Knowles
told us: "I see far more activity in Holland as a single
country in nanotechnology than anywhere else" and, in contrast,
the United Kingdom was "perhaps not [doing] as well as some
of the others [within the EU]" (Q 169). The Institute
of Nanotechnology (IoN) agreed: "most industrial research
on nanotechnology applications in agrifood takes place outside
the UK
the hubs of academic research are Netherlands and
US" (p 315). Dr Kampers described how Holland had
identified ten themes on which to focus its nanotechnologies research,
one of which was food. He explained: "the proposal is to
spend about 40 million over five years on applications of
nanotechnology in food" (Q 100). Of this funding, 50
per cent would be provided by Government and 50 per cent by the
participants (that is, industry and academia) (Q 100). We
heard from the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) that food
companies in the United States, although unwilling to talk about
their work, were continuing to explore the potential of nanotechnologies
(see Appendix 6).
3.24. Outside the United Kingdom there is government
funding available for developing applications of nanotechnologies
in the food sector. The United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) told us that they are currently running a research programme
looking at the potential applications of nanotechnologies in the
agricultural sector but said that it was a small-scale project
with limited funding. In contrast, Brazil invests heavily in research
and development related to agri-technologies, and nanotechnologies
have been identified as a priority. The Brazilian Agricultural
Research Corporation has set up a National Centre for Nanotechnology
Applied to Agri-business with the specific aim of "increasing
the competitiveness of Brazilian agriculture through the development
of new nanotechnologies" (p 10). The Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries in Japan has launched a project looking
at producing nanoscale particles of traditional foods such as
rice and soybeans (pp 20-21).
3.25. The European Union, which "claims
to be the biggest supporter of nanotechnology research in the
world" (Q 169), is expected to allocate up to 3.5
billion between 2007 and 2013 to nanotechnology-related projects
through its Framework 7 programmes.[6]
While the majority of this funding is directed at industries other
than the food industry, the call for applications in 2007 included
a small number of topics of relevance to the food sector, including
nano-devices for quality assurance, food safety and product properties,[7]
innovative and safe packaging[8]
and converging technologies and their potential for the food area.[9]
Encouraging the commercialisation
of nanotechnologies in the food sector
GOVERNMENT SUPPORT IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
3.26. Although the Government do not directly
fund the development of nanotechnology applications for the food
sector (Q 573), there are a number of ways by which the Government
may support the process of transforming scientific discoveries
into commercial products:
- developing a fundamental science
base;
- encouraging the translation of
fundamental research into applied research and commercial applications
and the effective transfer of knowledge between industry sectors
about new developments in nanotechnologies; and
- providing market support for innovative
research.
There are other factors that also have an impact
on the commercialisation of these technologies in the food sector
which we discuss in later chapters:
- the demonstrable safety of a product
and the product approval process (see Chapter 4);
- regulation of nanotechnologies
in the food sector (see Chapters 5 and 6); and
- public acceptance of new technologies
in food (see Chapter 7).
FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH
3.27. Nanotechnology is a developing area where
further basic research is needed to support potential applications.
The Research Councils said that although they "fund relatively
little research relating directly to the applications of nanotechnologies
in the food sector", they "support a much wider portfolio
of nanotechnology research which underpins a variety of potential
application areas, including applications relating to food, in
areas such as nanotoxicology, nanometrology, characterisation
and detection, nanotechnology-based sensor devices, food manufacturing
and processing and food structure" (p 199). But, they
added:
"further underpinning research [must be done]
to develop understanding in areas such as molecular self-assembly,
surface engineering and techniques such as electro-spinning. [These]
will be vital for reliable production of nanoscale structures.
Further research is also needed on measurement and characterisations
systems so that they can be deployed on a widespread basis"
(p 203).
3.28. The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research
Council (EPSRC) has spent £220 million over the last five
years on nanotechnology research, of which "a significant
amount supports underpinning research in areas such as nanometrology,
characterisation and detection that might lead to new measurement
or processing techniques that would be of relevance to the [food]
sector" (p 202). The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences
Research Council (BBSRC) leads on food research and in 2007-08
spent an estimated £4.5 million on research relating to nanotechnologies.
Much of this was related to areas such as drug delivery, materials
and sensors, where the findings could be of relevance to the food
sector.
SUPPORT FOR KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER
3.29. The Technology Strategy Board (TSB) is
responsible for promoting, supporting and investing in technology
research, development and commercialisation and provides a mechanism
for translating fundamental research into new products and services.
3.30. One of the ways in which the TSB promotes
innovation in this area is through the Nanotechnology Knowledge
Transfer Network (nanoKTN) which aims to facilitate the transfer
of knowledge and experience between industry and research. In
collaboration with Leatherhead Food International (LFI), the nanoKTN
has formed a Food Focus Group designed "to promote awareness
of the potential for these emerging technologies and materials
for the food industry and to encourage the industry to make their
voice heard" (pp 51-52).
3.31. Such knowledge transfer networks are importantall
the more so because so little research is targeted directly at
the application of nanotechnologies in the food sector. LFI, however,
questioned the effectiveness of nanoKTN in relation to the food
sector. It referred to a "lack of knowledge on developments
in non-food areas and in transference of such knowledge to the
food and drink industry" (p 52); and Ms Groves, from
LFI, told us that there were not enough resources available for
the nanoKTN to enable knowledge transfer across sectors (Q 97).
3.32. The effectiveness of a knowledge transfer
network also depends on co-operation by industry. We have already
noted (see paragraph 3.20) that food companies have been reluctant
to speak publicly about their work in this field in recent years.
Whilst recognising that there are circumstances where research
findings will not be shared for reasons of commercial confidentiality,
there are benefits to be gained from collaboration between industry,
the Government and academia. Ms Groves, for example, saw a need
for collaboration between industry and academia on pre-competitive
research, with all results made publicly available (Q 134).
Dr Kampers said that, in the Netherlands, Wageningen University
was looking at ways of setting up research initiatives in partnership
with industry and discussing the feasibility of establishing joint
research centres between academia and industry (Q 134). Dr
Declan Mulkeen, Director of Research and Training at the
Medical Research Council (MRC) told us that over the next few
years, the MRC's research work on nanotechnologies needed to be
"networked with the various companies
on the food
science side so they can start to factor [this work] in at an
earlier stage" (Q 393).
3.33. Government strategy on nanotechnologies
is set by a group called the Ministerial Group on Nanotechnologies.
It is chaired by the Minister for Science, Lord Drayson, and includes
Ministers representing DEFRA, the Department of Health (DH) and
the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (which has responsibility
for the Health and Safety Executive) (Q 11). In January 2009,
the Group released a Renewed Ministerial Commitment on Nanotechnologies
which outlined a number of pledges designed to take forward Government
work in this area. Given evidence that nanoKTN is not wholly effective
in facilitating the transfer of knowledge between industry sectors
and between industry and academia in the context of the food sector,
we were pleased to note that the Renewed Ministerial Commitment
on Nanotechnologies included a pledge by the Government to "develop
a better understanding of the objectives and needs of the UK industry
sectors that are likely to use nanotechnologies and nanomaterials".[10]
The Government also acknowledged in June 2009, in their response
to the 2008 report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution
(RCEP), Novel Materials in the Environment: The case of nanotechnology,
that "more needs to be done to improve the sharing of information
about new developments and potential risks" concerning nanotechnologies.[11]
3.34. Following the publication of the Renewed
Ministerial Commitment, the Government are developing a strategy
for nanotechnologies that "addresses both the exploitation
of technologies and the management of potential risks" (p 9).
This is expected to be published in early 2010 (Q 545). Asked
whether the Government felt that it was too early to define a
strategy to commercialise the use of nanotechnologies in the food
sector, Lord Drayson said: "that is one of the answers which
I expect to come out of
the strategy document" (Q 578).
Similarly, he told us that:
"the Technology Strategy Board's role is, once
it is understood what the underpinning technologies are likely
to be, to do a review to assess whether or not it is likely that
the United Kingdom is well placed to commercialise and exploit
that and then put targeted investment into those areas. It does
not seem at present that we are at the stage to be able to identify
those areas" (Q 577).
3.35. We recognise that the development of applications
of nanotechnologies in the food sector is still at an early stage
(see paragraph 3.15). However, these technologies offer a number
of potential benefits to both consumers and industry, and the
Government should ensure that the requirements of the food sector
are considered as part of the Government's strategy for nanotechnologies.
In addition, the Government should ensure that, as the TSB reviews
the commercialisation of nanotechnologies and starts to identify
areas for targeted funding, it considers the needs of the food
sector along with other, more high profile, industry sectors.
3.36. We recommend that, as part of their
commitment to gain a better understanding of the needs of United
Kingdom industry sectors likely to use nanotechnologies, the Government
should pay specific attention to identifying the needs of the
food industry and make provision for meeting those needs in their
2010 national strategy.
3.37. We recommend that Government should
take steps to ensure the establishment of research collaborations
between industry, academia and other relevant bodies at the pre-competitive
stage in order to promote the translation of basic research into
commercially viable applications of nanotechnologies in the food
sector.
3.38. We recommend that the Technology Strategy
Board reviews the state of the commercialisation of nanotechnologies
in the food sector. As part of this review it should suggest mechanisms
for improving the effectiveness of current knowledge transfer
systems.
ASSISTING SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED COMPANIES
3.39. The TSB funds 24 micro- and nanotechnology
open access centres. One of these, Eminate, focuses on the food
and pharmaceutical industries with the aim of "applying in-house
process technologies to develop customer products in the areas
of advanced coatings, materials and powders, food technology,
drug delivery, measurement and scale up through to pilot productions"
(p 43). This is a five year project receiving a grant of
£3.5 million.
3.40. Small and medium-sized companies form a
majority of companies working in the food sector in the United
Kingdom (see Appendix 4), and they make a particular contribution
to nanotechnology innovation. Dr Steffi Friedrichs, Director
of the Nanotechnologies Industries Association (NIA), for example,
told us: "when you look at where nanotechnology innovation
is done
it is done to a large extent where innovation is
done in entirely new emerging technologies: by small companies"
(Q 488). The RSC agreed (p 237), while Dr Kellie
also pointed to the importance of small to medium-sized companies
(Q 172).
3.41. The needs of smaller companies differ from
those of larger companies. Smaller companies are generally not
able to turn their innovations into fully-fledged products by
themselves. The RSC commented that "whilst small companies
and academic institutions are researching the potential of this
emerging technology, commercial realisation of new products and
ingredients is not being carried through to market" (p 236).
Dr Friedrichs said: "no small company is going to produce
a product and take it through the full value-adding steps of putting
it into an existing product and taking it all the way to market"
(Q 497), a view echoed by FDF who told us that bringing new
products to market is expensive and time-consuming process, and
one which is "prohibitive to all but the largest producers"
(p 76).
3.42. For some cases, the large food companies
would be the natural source of funding for smaller companies attempting
to develop their ideas, for example by contracting smaller companies
to work on specific applications of nanotechnologies. But the
food industry in the United Kingdom has been more cautious about
exploring the possibilities of nanotechnologies than in other
countries (see paragraph 3.23 above).
3.43. Dr Butler told us about the difficulty
in attracting venture capital, particularly vital for small companies
which are unable to finance research projects by themselves: "at
this stage, where you are discovering what it is and what it can
do, you are probably not going to get the VCs [venture capitalists]
involved" (Q 101). Dr Kampers said that situation
in the Netherlands was similar:
"In the Netherlands we see two ways in which
the results of the research get to market. The first in existing
companies adopting results from the research
The second
way, that is probably the most important and effective, is spin-outs,
small companies, new companies
they attract a little venture
capital but basically rely on funding from the market side
most of the funding is through other funding programmes that are
available and things like that, subsidies" (Q 101).
3.44. A recent Government review of the commercialisation
of science also identified a lack of capital as the main reason
why technologies were struggling to develop. Lord Drayson said:
"there has been a lack particularly of venture capital which
is dogging the ability of these projects to be developed in the
current economic environment" (Q 576). Therefore we
welcome the news that the Government have recently announced a
new £1 billion venture capital fund, which, Lord Drayson
told us, will be "specifically targeting areas of growth
such as technology such as this
we anticipate that fund
will be able to start investing in companies working in these
high growth areas at the end of this year [2009]" (Q 576).
3.45. If innovative small- and medium-sized companies
are not attracting the necessary funding from large companies
to develop their products, it may be necessary for Government
to ensure that funding is available to promote innovation in this
field.
SOCIETAL BENEFITS
3.46. Nanotechnologies in the food sector have
the potential to offer wider benefits to society, for example
by producing healthier foods or more environmentally friendly
packaging (see paragraphs 3.8-3.14 above). When asked whether
the Government planned to support research into areas of potential
benefit to society, such as lower fat foods to combat obesity,
Lord Drayson told us that:
"This is an area where significant research
is being undertaken by the food companies themselves. The important
role for research in this area is to address the underpinning
understanding of the way in which the body processes nanomaterials
that should be the right focus now for our research, to
get a handle on that in parallel with the work which is taking
place within the food companies" (QQ 572-573).
3.47. However, without bridging the gap between
fundamental research and the translation of research into applications
within industry through knowledge transfer, and without ensuring
that small companies have the necessary investments to develop
innovative products in this area, these applications may not emerge.
The contribution which nanotechnologies could make to wider food
policy objectives reinforces the importance of facilitating the
transfer of knowledge about these technologies within all industrial
sectors.
3.48. The Department for Business, Innovation
and Skills (BIS) told us that the TSB is currently preparing strategies
for nanoscale technologies and biosciences, with a focus on "linking
nanoscale technologies to societal challenges". The
bioscience strategy will focus on food technology and food safety
(p 43).
3.49. We recommend that the Technology Strategy
Board includes consideration of the role that nanotechnologies
may play in helping the food industry meet societal challenges,
such as obesity and waste, in its strategies for promoting nanoscale
technologies and biosciences, and that the Technology Strategy
Board proposes ways of supporting the development and commercialisation
of these technologies.
2 Morrison M and Robinson D, Nanotechnology Developments
for the Agrifood Sector, Report of the ObservatoryNANO, 2009. Back
3
Chaudhry, Q et al., Assessment of the potential use of nanomaterials
as food additives or food ingredients in relation to consumer
safety and implication for regulatory controls, Report for
the Food Standards Agency, 2007, p 6. Back
4
Ibid., Chaudhry et al., Assessment of the potential
use of nanomaterials, p 7. Back
5
Ibid., Chaudhry et al., Assessment of the potential
use of nanomaterials, p 6. Back
6
See http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/cooperation/nanotechnology_en.html Back
7
KBBE-2007-2-3-04 Back
8
KBBE-2007-2-4-04 Back
9
KBBE-2007-2-5-02 Back
10
See http://www.dius.gov.uk/news_and_speeches/press_releases/nanotechnology Back
11
UK Government response to The Royal Commission on Environmental
Pollution (RCEP) Report, Novel Materials in the Environment:
The Case Of Nanotechnology, 2009, p 9, para 15. Back
|