| Summary: | Eight consumer surveys over five years, with over eight thousand subjects and across two continents yield three clear results. They are that, firstly, consumers are generally ignorant about nanotechnology, secondly, they are generally optimistic about nanotechnology and, thirdly, despite the general optimism, they draw the line at food, they do not want nanotechnology in their food. Nano-food fails the Snow White Test: Would the transaction proceed if, between the parties, there was symmetry of information about the product? If nanomaterials are used in food production consumers want to be informed so they can exercise choice. There are three available responses that honour these sentiments towards nano and food, and they are, firstly, to ban nanotechnology from the food stream, or secondly, to label nanofood, or thirdly, to label non-nanofood. Two recommendations are presented. The organic sector has both the capacity and the imperative to exclude nano from its food stream, and hence to adopt the third option. The implementation of a nano-exclusion involves adopting a no-nano clause in organic standards. The organic standards of Australia, the UK Soil Association, and of Demeter- International have already implemented such an exclusion. For such exclusions to be effective there needs to be a watching brief on nanotechnology developments and implementations that may impact food and agriculture so that the integrity of the exclusion is maintained, not only in intention but also in practice.
|
|---|