Memorandum by Which?
SUMMARY
1. Which? considers that nanotechnologies
have the potential to offer consumers many benefits, including
in the food area. However, we consider that there needs to be
a more co-ordinated and strategic approach to ensure that nanotechnologies
are developed safely and responsibly and are used to tackle some
of the major challenges facing the food supply chain.
2. We are concerned that fundamental knowledge
gaps and uncertainties are not being addressed with sufficient
urgency. These include gaps in knowledge about what is on the
market, being supplied to the food industry and what is being
developed for the future; basic research to underpin meaningful
risk assessment; regulatory requirements for pre-market authorisation
and understanding of consumer attitudes to potential developments.
3. Our consumer research has highlighted a lack
of public awareness of nanotechnologies, but suggests that people
are interested in nanotechnology developments, including in the
food sector, provided that they see real benefits and are assured
of their safety and can make an informed choice. We have made
a series of recommendations in relation to the areas highlighted
in the call for evidence which are summarised below and explained
in full in our evidence:
STATE OF
THE SCIENCE
AND CURRENT
USE IN
THE FOOD
SECTOR:
The lack of agreed definitions needs
to be urgently resolved so that there is clarity over how to classify
nanomaterials. A mandatory reporting scheme should be introduced
for manufactured nanomaterials to enable a more accurate assessment
of developments.
The food industry needs to be more transparent
about the status of developments.
The government, particularly the Food
Standards Agency (FSA), needs to more pro-actively engage with
this issue in order to understand likely applications.
There needs to be more effective engagement
between regulators, the research councils and broader research
community and the food industry in order to understand what is
going on.
This needs to be done in collaboration
with other stakeholders, including consumer organisations, leading
to a more defined and strategic "roadmap" for nanotechnologies
and food.
International regulatory co-operation
is also essential in order to understand what is happening in
other parts of the world, particularly as many developments are
taking place in Asia and the United States.
HEALTH AND
SAFETY
Efforts to ensure that research is undertaken
to address key uncertainties need to be dramatically accelerated
in order to enable effective risk assessment. Current
knowledge should be drawn upon in order to make some general conclusions
about which materials are likely to pose most risk and which may
be of little concern in order to identify priority areas for action,
restrictions and to direct future developments.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
There must be clarity across all food
legislation (eg. through clear guidance or updating of relevant
legislation) that materials produced using nanotechnology are
subject to mandatory independent pre-market assessment and approval
(ie by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)) and that materials
that have already been approved in their conventional form need
a separate assessment and approval if in nano form. This needs
to be addressed as part of the current review of the EU novel
foods regulation. There must be effective enforcement
so that any products that are on the market which have not been
approved are removed. This requires clear guidance to be given
to local authorities by the FSA.
There should be greater clarity about
how broader consumer and other social issues are to be taken into
account as part of the approval process.
There needs to be effective monitoring
by the FSA of the extent to which other non-food nanomaterials
may be contaminating the food chain and any associated risks.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
AND EFFECTIVE
COMMUNICATION
More effective consumer engagement at
the earliest opportunity is needed specifically focused around
potential food developments so that it can be ensured that research
priorities and regulatory approaches are in line with consumer
expectations and address their concerns. Once there is
a fuller understanding of the potential of nanotechnologies for
food, greater consideration needs to be given to any social and
ethical issues that may be raised and how these can be addressed.
There should be a requirement that manufactured
nanomaterials used in food products have to be labelled in the
list of ingredients. The current EU discussions around the new
food information regulations provide an opportunity to address
this.
Greater effort is needed across government
to increase public awareness of nanotechnologies and the issues
that they raise in a balanced way.
INTRODUCTION
4. Which? welcomes this opportunity to submit
evidence to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee's
Inquiry into Nanotechnologies and Food.
5. Nanotechnologies have the potential to offer
consumers a wide range of benefits, including in the food sector,
but we are concerned about the way that developments are being
handled. There has been a failure to take a sufficiently strategic
approach to the issue and ensure that advantage is taken of nanotechnologies
so that they help to tackle the many challenges currently facing
the food supply chainfrom the need to encourage healthier
eating and produce safe food to reducing the environmental impact
of food production and consumption. Concerns have repeatedly been
raised by leading expert bodies at national and EU level about
the many uncertainties that hinder effective risk assessment of
nanomaterials and about gaps in the current regulatory framework.
However, we are concerned that these are not being addressed with
sufficient urgency, to discriminate those applications that are
likely to be beneficial and should be given greater priority,
from those that could potentially put consumers at risk.
6. It is therefore very timely for the Committee
to be reviewing this whole area and we hope that the Inquiry will
lead to a more pro-active and joined up approach by government
so that it can be ensured that consumers genuinely can take advantage
of the benefits offered by nanotechnologies, while being able
to make informed choices and be confident that they are not being
put at unnecessary risk.
STATE OF
THE SCIENCE
AND ITS
CURRENT USE
IN THE
FOOD SECTOR
7. There is the potential for nanotechnologies
to benefit food production in a variety of ways. Traditionally,
many foods have relied on manipulation at the nanoscale in order
to give them particular characteristics, although this was not
explicitly seen as "nanotechnology", for example, the
manufacture of custard or mayonnaise. Advances in microscopic
techniques have made it possible to deliberately manipulate materials
at the nanoscale, enabling them to take on new properties that
would not otherwise be possible.
8. It is, however, very difficult to gain a clear
picture of the extent to which nanomaterials and nanotechnologies
more generally are being used in food productionor the
extent to which research is taking place into future applications
that will come to market and could be impacting on consumers in
the next five, 10 or 20 years. This information is essential if
we are to have an informed and transparent debate about the role
of nanotechnologies, ensure the adequacy of risk assessment, management
and communication approaches and if it is to be ensured that nanotechnology
applications take place in line with consumer expectations. The
situation is also further complicated by the lack of any agreed
international definitions as to what falls under nanotechnologies
or should be considered a nanomaterial.
9. A few years ago, leading food companies
were quoted in the trade press as taking an active interest in
using nanotechnologies.[1]
Kraft was, for example, quoted as looking at the potential of
"smart nano-filters" to limit allergic reactions and
investigating "smart packaging", while Nestle was also
reported to be looking at the possibility of using nanotechnologies
to customise and personalise food with precisely targeted delivery
of nutritional and health benefits. However, the main food manufacturers
now state that they currently are not using nanotechnologies,
although some chemical companies are supplying nanomaterials and
there are several "nano" food supplement products available
to buy over the internet. It is, therefore, essential that there
is transparency across the entire supply chain.
10. Based on a recent overview produced
by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, the main areas of interest
appear to be:[2]
sensory improvements (flavour or colour
enhancement, texture modification);
increased absorption and targeted delivery
of nutrients and bioactive compounds;
stabilisation of active ingredients such
as nutraceuticals in food matrices;
packaging and product innovation to extend
shelf-life;
sensors to improve food safety; and
antimicrobials to kill pathogenic bacteria
in food.
11. The types of nanomaterials likely to
be used include:
nanoparticles, such as silver and iron
used in food supplements;
nanofibres, such as globular proteins
used as thickening agents;
nanoemulsions and dispersions, such as
oil in water to produce low fat products; and
nanoclays, such as clay composites used
in packaging materials to extend shelf-life.
12. A recent review of nano food developments
by Chaudhry et al[3]
concluded that virtually all known applications are currently
outside the UK and Europe, mainly in the USA, Australia, New Zealand,
South Korea, Taiwan, China and Israel. Two exceptions were highlighted:
a synthetic form of lycopene, found in tomatoes, produced by BASF
in Germany; and a nano-micelle-based carrier system NovaSOL produced
by Aquanova, also based in Germany.
13. The online Woodrow Wilson Center's Inventory
of nano products[4]
and the "Nanoshop" web-site[5]
include a range of nano products that are available to buy, including
food supplements, food packaging materials and food containers.
The lack of agreement over definitions makes it difficult to be
clear what is definitely a nano product, but examples of products
claiming to be "nano" include:
Solgar's Nutri-nano CoQ10 and Nutri-nano
CoQ10 with Alpha Lipoic Acid[6]
(from the UK) food supplements, part of "the first-line of
nutritional supplement to use nanotechnology to deliver unprecedented
bioavailability".
Canola Active oil by Shemen[7]
(from Israel) "an oil enriched with free phytosterols".
Nano selenium rich tea[8]
(from China).
Nano calcium and magnesium food supplement[9]
(from the USA) "a potent 100% available and absorbable ionic
solution when dissolved in water".
ASAP solution food supplement[10]
(from the USA) "an engineered silver nano particle mineral
supplement" which is "an immune system support".
Nanoceuticals Slim Shake Chocolate by
RBC Lifesciences[11]
(from the USA) "with a blend of high quality protein, fiber
(sic), complex carbohydrate and the proprietary Cocoaclusters
or Vanillaclusters [this formula] provides a nutritious and low
calorie meal that will help you lose those unwanted pounds once
and for all".
Skybright Natural Health Colloidal Silver
Liquid[12]
(from New Zealand) "support the body's immune system and
natural defences, for natural healing".
14. EFSA recently approved the use of Titanium
nitride as a food contact material for use in PET bottles.[13]
It also issued an opinion on a silver hydrosol food supplement
that it was unable to assess because the data was inadequate.[14]
15. Overall, it is therefore very difficult
to gain a clear indication of what developments are already taking
place and what we could see in the future. Defra has trialled
a voluntary reporting scheme for manufactured nanomaterials, but
this has had a very limited response with just 11 submissions
since it was launched in September 2006.
16. We therefore consider that the following
actions are needed:
The definitional issue needs to be urgently
resolved so that there is clarity over how to classify nanomaterials.
A mandatory reporting scheme should be
introduced for manufactured nanomaterials to enable a more accurate
assessment of what developments are taking place.
The food industry needs to be more transparent
about the status of developments, including the food supplement
industry and suppliers across the food chain, such as ingredients
and packaging material manufacturers.
The government, particularly the Food
Standards Agency, needs to more pro-actively engage with this
issue in order to understand what applications are likely.
In line with this, there needs to be
better and more formalised engagement between regulators (eg FSA,
Department of Health and Defra), the research councils and broader
research community and the food industry in order to understand
what is going on.
This needs to be done in collaboration
with other stakeholders, including consumer organisations, leading
to a more defined and strategic "roadmap" of where food-related
nanotechnology developments are currently going and where they
should be going in order to meet the key food policy priorities
around food safety, quality, nutrition and sustainability.
International regulatory co-operation
is also essential in order to understand what is happening in
other parts of the world, particularly as many developments are
taking place in Asia and the United States.
HEALTH AND
SAFETY
17. We are also concerned that there remains
too limited an understanding of the risks that could be posed
by some manufactured nanomaterials. Despite relatively early warnings
from the Royal Society and Royal Academy and Engineering back
in 2004[15]
that some nanomaterials may pose different risks to materials
in their bulk form, many uncertainties still remain.
18. While some nanomaterials may be of little
concern, recent opinions by the EU's Scientific Committee on Emerging
and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR)[16]
and the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA's) Scientific Committee[17]
have again highlighted a number of uncertainties that need to
be addressed. As well as highlighting the lack of information
available to enable the potential exposure to engineered nanomaterials
(ENMs) to be assessed, EFSA highlighted some fundamental gaps
in knowledge around toxicokinetics (the absorption, distribution,
metabolism and excretion of substances in the body) and toxicology.
19. The breadth of the uncertainties were
summarised in EFSA's overall conclusions: "Current uncertainties
for risk assessment of nanotechnologies and their possible applications
in the food and feed area arise due to presently limited information
in several areas. Specific uncertainties apply to the difficulty
to characterize, detect and measure engineered nanomaterials (ENMs)
in food/feed and biological matrices and the limited information
available in relation to aspects of toxicokinetics and toxicology,
including optimal methods for testing ENMs. There is limited knowledge
of (likely) exposure from possible applications and products in
the food and feed area and of environmental impacts of such applications
and products. The current usage levels of ENMs in the food and
feed area is unknown".
20. The lack of knowledge is fundamental.
For example, the understanding of the potential toxicity after
consuming manufactured (or engineered) nanomaterials has only
been studied for a very limited number of materials and only a
few studies have compared the toxicity of the nano and conventional
form of the same chemical species. EFSA, therefore, concluded
that the data are insufficient to draw general conclusions. It
stressed the importance of a case by case approach to risk assessment,
but emphasised that under the current circumstances any individual
risk assessment is likely to be subject to a high degree of uncertaintyand
that this would remain the case until there was more data on,
and more experience with, testing of engineered nanomaterials.
21. Defra over-sees the UK's Research Co-ordination
Group on nanotechnologies and has published and set out a series
of research priorities,[18]
but we are concerned that these gaps in understanding are not
being addressed with sufficient urgency. This is compounded by
the failure by government to get to grips with what is actually
on the market, either in terms of specific food and applications
or other non-food developments that could have implications for
the food supply chain.
22. We therefore consider that the following
action is needed:
Efforts to ensure that research is undertaken
to address key uncertainties needs to be dramatically accelerated
in order to enable effective risk assessment. Leading scientific
bodies are repeatedly producing lists of key knowledge gaps and
uncertaintiesthe most recent coming from research the SCENIHR
and EFSA committees.
As part of this, current knowledge should
be drawn upon in order to make some general conclusions about
which materials are likely to pose most risk and which may be
of little concern in order to identify priority areas for action
and to direct future developments, including identifying where
any restrictions need to be placed.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
23. Under the Food Safety Act 1990 and the
EU's regulation on food law,[19]
there is a general requirement that food should be safe. The issue
in relation to nanomaterials used in food production is how this
can be ensured in practice given the uncertainties highlighted
above.
24. Many food applications that are relevant
to the use of nanotechnology are subject to specific EU legislation
that requires a pre-market authorisation, including a risk assessment
by EFSA (eg food additives, food contact materials and food supplements).
The recent review of the food improvement agents package of legislation
which included food additives, flavourings and enzymes, for example,
was used to clarify that an additive produced in nano form was
considered a new material compared to its bulk form and therefore
required specific approval.[20]
25. It is essential that there is clarity
over how nanomaterials are to be dealt with. This is difficult
without agreed definitions as to what is classed as a nanomaterial.
However, it is essential that consumers are not exposed to risks
from nanomaterials while the debate over definitions is resolved.
26. One specific gap has been in relation
to novel foods. The novel foods regulation is currently being
reviewed and considered by the European Parliament and Council.
The European Commission proposed that products produced using
nanotechnologies (as well as any other "new production process")
should fall under the definition of a "novel food" and
therefore require pre-market approval, but only if it gives rise
to "significant changes in the composition or structure of
the food which affect its nutritional value, metabolism or level
of undesirable substances."[21]
We are concerned that this is too limited as it relies on a company
making an assessment as to the relevance of any changes before
a product would be subject to an independent risk assessment.
The Regulation should therefore be clear that if a product is
produced using nanotechnologyand does not fall under any
specific food regulations as outlined aboveit should be
considered a novel food and require a pre-market assessment by
EFSA and EU authorisation before it can go on the market.
27. The general food law regulation (EC
178/2002) acknowledges in Article 6 that as well as risk assessment,
risk analysis should also take account of "other factors
legitimate to the matter under consideration and the precautionary
principle". Nanotechnologies are likely to raise a wide range
of issues some of which will go beyond safety aspects. It is essential
that these broader social and ethical issues are understood and
are taken into account as part of authorisation processes. This
is also consistent with the FSA's role of protecting public health
and "other consumer interests in relation to food".[22]
28. The call for evidence seeks views on
the role that voluntary self-regulation may play in this area.
Given that food is generally a highly regulated area compared
to other products in view of the potential widespread health consequences
if it is unsafe, we consider that it would be a backward step
to rely on a voluntary approach to control the issues raised by
manufactured nanomaterials. This is a highly competitive area
and is also an area where there is a great deal of uncertainty.
Our experience from working with a range of other stakeholders
as part of an initiative to develop a Responsible Nano Code[23]
is that it is only likely to be possible to reach agreement on
broad principles, rather than on the specific measures that are
needed in order to ensure the safe and responsible development
of nanomaterials. This has also been reinforced by the poor response
to Defra's voluntary reporting scheme.
29. In relation to inter-governmental co-operation,
the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
has established a Working Party on Nanotechnology and a Working
Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials looking at health and safety
aspects. The International Standards Organisation (ISO) is also
undertaking several pieces of work and has been leading on efforts
towards standardisation of definitions. The relevant international
standards body for food regulation is the Food and Agriculture
Organisation (FAO) and World Health Organisation (WHO) Codex Alimentarius
Commission. While it is essential that there is international
co-operation on this issue, experience from the development of
standards for other emerging technologies has been that these
bodies can take many years to reach agreement on standardsand
often come after products have been on sale for many years. It
is therefore important that the UK and EU actively participate
and take a leadership role in these discussions, but waiting for
international consensus could put consumers at risk.
30. There is a more specific initiative
to ensure regulatory co-operation between the US and EU as part
of the Trans-atlantic Economic Council established by the previous
US administration and the German Presidency of the EU.[24]
This work is important to ensure that there is a common approach
to the regulation of this technology, avoiding any potential trade
disputes and ensuring that consumer protection is not undermined.
31. As well as addressing the concerns raised
above specifically in relation to the review of the novel foods
regulation, we consider that the following issues need to be addressed:
It should be ensured that there is clarity
across all food legislation (eg through clear guidance or updating
of relevant legislation), that materials produced using nanotechnology
are subject to mandatory independent pre-market assessment and
approval (ie by EFSA) and that materials that have already been
approved in their conventional form need a separate assessment
and approval if in nano form.
Effective enforcement should be ensured
so that any products that are on the market which have not been
approved are removed. This requires clear guidance to be given
to local authorities by the FSA, including over how to deal with
products available over the internet.
There is a need for clarity over how
broader consumer and other social issues are to be taken into
account as part of the approval process, in line with the recognition
that "other legitimate factors" play a role and need
to be taken into account by risk managers in the EU's general
food law regulation.
There should be effective monitoring
by the FSA of the extent to which other non-food nanomaterials
may be contaminating the food chain and any associated risks.
32. In addition, as highlighted above, in
relation to current uses and health and safety aspects:
Regulation needs to ensure that there
are robust definitions in place that cover all potential food
applications that may be considered to exhibit different properties
because they are manufactured using nanotechnology.
Regulation is needed to ensure that manufactured
nanomaterials have to be reported to the regulatory authority
(ie Defra or FSA).
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
AND CONSUMER
INFORMATION
33. Which? conducted a survey in October
2008 which found that only 45 per cent of people had heard of
nanotechnology.[25]
This was a slight increase from our last survey in November 2007
when 37 per cent were aware,[26]
but even those who had heard about it were unclear what it is.
Respondents were asked what first thing they think of when they
hear the term "nanotechnology" and around half (52 per
cent) couldn't come up with anything at all. Around one in five
(22 per cent) made mentions relating to size and slightly fewer
(18 per cent) mentioned electronics, science or technology. Awareness
was higher among men than women (53 per cent compared to 37 per
cent) and those over 65 were likely to be less aware (37 per cent).
When asked where they thought nanotechnology is currently being
used to produce consumer products, just 3 per cent mentioned foodand
only 6 per cent when prompted with a list of possible applications.
34. In November 2007, we commissioned a citizens'
panel in order to understand consumer attitudes towards nanotechnologies.[27]
This looked at food applications as well as medicines, cosmetics
and other consumer products. A summary of the findings and the
full report conducted by Opinion Leader are enclosed.
35. The Panel was made up of 14 people,
broadly representative of the population. They met over three
days and heard evidence from a range of experts. Although 14 people
is a small number, we felt that it was appropriate to use this
type of deliberative technique over other research methods given
the complexity of the issue and lack of consumer awareness.
36. The Panel indicated that people are
unlikely to have blanket opposition to the use of nanotechnologies
for food products. Some people were positive about possible developments,
such as intelligent packaging, although others were slightly more
wary of getting into areas they considered to be unnatural. Overall,
people expect there to be effective regulation in place. They
also wanted to know where manufactured nanomaterials are being
used and called for labelling. However, the panellists recognised
that this would only be useful if backed up by broader information
about nanotechnologies that would make the information on the
label meaningful.
37. It is also likely that many food companies
will want to make claims about the benefits the use of nanomaterials
offer. This is already the case in relation to the nano products
that can be found on the internet. It is, therefore, essential
that these claims can be independently substantiated and that
enforcement action is taken over misleading claims.
38. Lessons from the introduction of other
new technologies, most notably the introduction of genetically
modified (GM) foods, has been that it is essential to engage the
public at the outset and ensure that there is a two way exchange,
leading to the development and use of the technology in a socially
acceptable way that brings genuine consumer benefits. Although
this has been widely acknowledged as necessary in relation to
nanotechnologies by the government and various engagement activities
have been organised and overseen by a Nanotechnology Engagement
Group, we are concerned that these have been too limited. Part
of the problem is that until the government has a better understanding
of what the use of nanotechnologies in the food area is really
going to mean for consumers, it is difficult to have a meaningful
debate. Most of the engagement exercises to date have been quite
general and while giving a general insight into how consumers
expect new technologies to be regulated, they have not explored
likely reactions to different developments so that the public's
views can help to shape the research and regulatory agendas.
39. We therefore consider that the following
actions are needed:
More effective consumer engagement at
the earliest opportunity specifically focused around potential
food developments by the FSA so that it can be ensured that research
priorities and regulatory approaches are in line with consumer
expectations and address their concerns.
Once there is a fuller understanding
of the potential of nanotechnologies for food, greater consideration
needs to be given to any social and ethical issues that may be
raised and whether these can be addressed or whether some applications
are inappropriate as a result.
There should be a requirement that manufactured
nanomaterials used in food products have to be labelled in the
list of ingredients. The current EU discussions around the new
food information regulations provide an opportunity to address
this.[28]
Greater effort is needed across government
to increase awareness of nanotechnologies and the issues that
they raise in a balanced way.
March 2009
1 A mini revolution, Food Manufacture, 1 September
2004 Back
2
The relevance for food safety of applications of nanotechnology
in the food and feed industries, Food Safety Authority of Ireland,
2008. Back
3
Applications and implications of nanotechnologies for the food
sector, Quasim Chaudhry et al, Food Additives and Contaminants,
March 2008, 25(3): 241-258 Back
4
www.nanorechproject.org/inventories/consumer Back
5
www.nanoshop.com Back
6
www.solgar.co.uk Back
7
www.shemen.co.il Back
8
www.369.com.cn Back
9
www.magi-i-cal.com Back
10
www.asapsolution.com Back
11
813312.rbclifesciences.com Back
12
www.skybright.co.nz Back
13
21st list of substances for food contact materials-Scientific
Opinion of the Panel on food contact materials, enzymes, flavourings
and processing aids (CEF) Question number: EFSA-Q-2005-151, EFSA-Q-2006-324,
EFSA-Q-2006-323, European Food Safety Authority, 27 November 2008. Back
14
Inability to assess the safety of a silver hydrosol added for
nutritional purposes as a source of silver in food supplements
and the bioavailability of silver from this source based on the
supporting dossier-Scientific Statement of the Panel on Food Additives
and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS), European Food Safety
Authority, Question number: EFSA-Q-2005-169, 26 November 2008. Back
15
Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties,
The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, 2004. Back
16
Risk assessment of products of nanotechnologies, Scientific Committee
on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, 19 January 2009. Back
17
The potential risks arising from nanoscience and nanotechnologies
on food and feed safety, Scientific Opinion of the Scientific
Committee, European Food Safety Authority (Question No EFSA=Q-2007-124),
10 February 2009. Back
18
Characterising the Potential Risks posed by Engineered Nanoparticles:
A Second UK Government Research Report, HM Government 2007. Back
19
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles
and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety
Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. Back
20
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/chemicalsafety/additives/prop_leg_en.htm Back
21
Proposal for a Regulation of the European parliament and of the
Council on novel foods, COM (2007) 872 final, 14.1.2008-proposed
Article 3. Back
22
Food Standards Act 1999. Back
23
http://www.responsiblenanocode.org/ Back
24
Framework for advancing transatlantic economic integration between
the European Union and the United States of America, April 2007. Back
25
October 2008 face to face survey of 977 adults aged 16+ representative
of adults in the UK. Back
26
November 2007 face to face survey of 2,091 adults aged 16+ representative
of adults in the UK. Back
27
Opinion Leader Research conducted a Citizens' Panel on behalf
of Which? with 14 members of the public. Panellists were selected
broadly to reflect the general public and sat for three days from
29 November-1 December 2007. The venue was Birmingham University
and panellists were recruited from Birmingham and the wider West
Midlands area. Expert witnesses were called upon to explain nanotechnologies,
the overall benefits and issues, applications in particular areas
(including benefits and issues) and the policies and controls
in place. The Panel was overseen by a steering group, with a range
of expertise and interests, who advised on the approach, agenda
and selection of witnesses. Back
28
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council on the provision of food information to consumers, COM(2008)
40 final, 30.1.2008. Back
|