IFOAM Nanotechnology Workshop at Modena, Italy: Nanotechnology is creating engineered particles in the size range 1 to 100 nanometers. At the nano-scale, materials exhibit novel behaviours. Nine billion dollars is currently invested annually in nano-research, with the explicit intention of rapid commercialisation, including food and agriculture applications. Nanotechnology is currently unregulated, and nano-products are not required to be labelled. Health, safety and ecological aspects are poorly understood, and there have been calls for a moratorium. Two consumer surveys indicate that public awareness of nanotechnology is low, there is concern that the risks exceed the benefits, that food safety is declining along with declining confidence in regulatory authorities. A majority of respondents (65%) are concerned about side effects, and that nano-products should be labelled (71%), and only 7% reported they would purchase nano-food. There is an opportunity, for the organic community to take the initiative to develop standards to exclude engineered nanoparticles from organic products. Such a step will service both the organic community and the otherwise nano-averse consumers - just as GMOs have been excluded previously.

1. Nano-in-Food
~
Threat or Opportunity for
Organic Food?
John Paull, Australian National University
john.paull@mail.com
Kristin Lyons, Griffith University
IFOAM Organic World Congress, 16-20 July, 2008
1

2. What is Nanotechnology?
1-100 nanometres
nanometre = 1 billionth of a metre
“the precision-engineering of materials at
the scale of 10-9 (one ten thousandth the
breadth of a human hair), at which point,
new functionalities are obtained, resulting
in products, devices and processes that
will transform various industries” (AON, 2007)
2

3. Eric Drexler
1990
“an enormously
original book about
the consequences of
new technologies”
Minsky, p.v, intro
“... are we too wicked
to do the right thing...
too stupid to do the
right thing... too lazy
to prepare”
Drexler, p.200
3

4. Image source: Smalley Institute, Rice University, 2006, cnst.rice.edu/nano.cfm
4

5. Image credit: Courtesy LUNA Innovations
“Medical Buckyballs. Computer model of a molecule made by LUNA Innovations of
Blacksburg, Va. The company plans to produce novel "buckyball" materials for
medical diagnostics and other military and commercial applications. The technology
was developed in part with a 2001 award from NIST's Advanced Technology
Program (ATP). The ATP grant helped to accelerate the development process for new
nanomaterials for medical imaging and drug delivery.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/05nano_image_gallery.htm
5

6. 6

7. www.zyvex.com/
nanotech/nano4.html
Logo image: Fourth
Foresight Conference
on Molecular
Nanotechnology, 1995
7

8. Why Nano?
•New properties
•Surface area:
particle size ↓ x 1000
surface area ↑ x 1000
•Doctrine of Substantial Equivalence*
claim difference > get patents
claim sameness > avoid regulation
* Paull, 2008, M/C J of Media & Culture, 11(2)
8

9. Multi billion $ Research Effort
Government Nano R&D
US$5 B
US$4 B
US$3 B
US$2 B
US$1 B
US$0 B
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Data source: Roco, 2007
9

10. International Research Effort
Data source: Roco, 2007
10

11. s
es
tn
n
de
ar
&F
i
lth
ea
H
e
ag
cs
ni
ve
r
e&
G
om
H
&B
e
Fo
od
El
ec
tro
e
s
gs
tin
oa
C
iv
ot
m
Au
to
n
ce
ia
n
Ap
pl
re
hi
ld
C
Number of Products
Nano-Products (N = 580)
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Data source: WWICS, 2007
11

12. Food & Beverage Nano-Products (N = 66)
Data source: WWICS, 2007
12

13. Hazard Labelling?
Source: ETC, 2007
13

14. US Consumer Knowledge
of Nanotechnology
Percentage of Respondents
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Nothing
Little
Some
Lot
Don’t Know
Data source: HRA, 2007, N=1014
14

15. US Consumer Perceptions
of Risks & Benefits
Percentage of Respondents
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
no
w
is
ks
on
D
M
or
e
’t
K
R
its
Be
ne
f
=
ks
is
R
M
or
e
Be
ne
f
its
0%
Data source: HRA, 2007, N=1014
15

16. Consumer Perception of the Direction
of Food Safety over the past 5 years
Percentage of Respondents
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
kn
ow
’t
D
on
sa
f
e
or
m
uc
h
M
tm
or
So
m
ew
ha
U
e
e
e
sa
f
ng
ed
nc
ha
sa
f
ew
So
m
M
uc
h
ha
tl
le
ss
es
s
sa
f
e
e
0%
Data source: HRA, 2007, N=1014
16

17. Consumer Confidence in Regulatory
Authorities over the past 5 yrs
Confidence, Prior
Confidence, 2007
Percentage Confidence
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
FDA
EPA
USDA
Regulatory Authority
Data source: HRA, 2007, N=1014
17

18. 70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
ha
s
ld
W
ou
N
ee
d
m
Pu
or
rc
e
ch
a
ur
no
tp
d
W
ou
l
e
in
fo
0%
se
Percentage of Respondents
Consumer’s Willingness to Purchase
Food “enhanced with nanotechnology”
Data source: HRA, 2007, N=1014
18

19. Nano-in-Food?
Sources of Nano
Examples
in Food
Adventitious
Nano-pollution from: airborne, rain-borne,
water-borne nanoparticle-drift from off-farm and/
or off-site.
Incidental
Nano-pollution from: nanonized packaging;
surface coatings - in packaging, sorting,
storage, sales areas; utensils; packaging
equipment; transport equipment; filtration
equipment.
Intentional
Nano-pollution from: nanonized production
inputs; food processing additives; foliar or
systemic sprays.
Table source: Paull & Lyons, JOS, 3(1) 2008
19

20. Aus Consumer Responses:
Labelling & Side-Effects?
Percentage of Respondents
40%
Labelling required of nanoproducts
Concerned about side-effects
30%
20%
10%
0%
AgreeStrongly
Agree
Disagree
DisagreeStrongly
Don’tKnow
Source: Paull & Lyons, 2008; data source: MARS, 2007, N=1000
20

21. Cryptic food technologies
Synthetic pesticides, fertilizers,
irradiation, GMOs...
Leads to Asymmetric Knowledge:
invisible & undetectable for consumer
Nanoparticles... the latest cryptic food
technology
21

22. Threat?
•“Certified Organic”
•Explicit exclusion of synthetic pesticides,
fertilisers, of GMOs & of irradiation
•Implied Social Contract & consumer
expectation: food free of cryptic technologies
•Nano-in-Organic > disenchanted Organic
consumers
22

23. Opportunity:
Organic = No Nano
True to the spirit of Organics
True to the Organic “CHEF” Principles
(Care, Health, Environment & Fairness)
Potentially broadens the appeal of Organics...
... grants a choice to those consumers who
wish to avoid Nano-in food
23

24. Soil Association
The leading UK Organic
certifier announced a
nano-ban, the first
Organic certifier to do so
(17 Jan, 2008)
24

25. Organic Standards
to specifically exclude engineered
Nanoparticles:
•production
•processing
•packaging
adopt precautions against...
•intentional
•adventitious
•incidental
25

26. Threat (of inaction):
Organics loses face,
breaches its social contract with consumers &
Organics is contaminated with nanoparticles
Opportunity (to act):
Put a Nano-exclusion in place,
this keeps faith with the existing clientele &
can attract a new clientele of nano-avoiders
26

27. Conclusions/
Recommendations
1.
IFOAM follows the Soil Association’s
example & adds a nano-exclusion to
the basic organic standard
2.
If that is not quickly forthcoming, then
regional standards or individual
certifiers act pre-emptively and adopt
their own nano-exclusions
27

28. Paull & Lyons, 2008,
“Nanotechnology: The Next
Challenge for Organics”
Journal of Organic Systems
3 (1) 3-22
28

29. Nano-in-Food
~
Thank you & Questions
john.paull@mail.com
29