Last week, I visited Brussels to attend an interesting symposium about the use of nanotechnology in food. This is a controversial issue, as consumers naturally prefer food with as little technological enhancement as possible. And to make things worse, many people associate nanotechnology with biotechnology on the one hand, and asbestos on the other. A veritable minefield. But to my mind, nanotechnology will prove very useful to both consumers and the food industry. Furthermore, it is a powerful driving force behind the type of innovation that will provide unique opportunities for safeguarding the cost-effectiveness of this vital sector in Europe, and more importantly in the Netherlands.
Nanotechnology replenishes the food technologist’s toolbox with a range of the latest, high-precision instruments. The instruments are used to develop products that promote health, can be sustainably produced, that make food safer and that can even evoke brand new sensations. All perfectly good reasons for ensuring that this technology is not lumped under the same heading as biotechnology.
It cannot be denied that certain nanotechnology, particularly the persistent (insoluble and non-biodegradable) nanoparticles, may hold potential risks. However, this is only a minor proportion of all the uses of nanotechnology. Moreover, there is little call for expensive nanostructured ingredients in the food sector if they do not contribute to the nutritional value. And this is something that persistent nanoparticles don’t do by definition. The problem is that the press, and therefore the general public, make no distinction between nanotechnology and nanoparticles. So it is widely believed that the possible dangers of nanoparticles also apply to nanotechnology.
At this juncture, politicians would do anything to avoid risk. Everyone is busily devising rules and regulations to keep their own house in order so that if necessary, they can prove that everything was done to limit potential risks. In the food sector, this has led to the Novel Foods Regulation, which is currently being developed. The European Parliament wants the new legislation to make explicit mention of nanotechnology, despite the fact that its inclusion is already implicit. Clear regulations heighten consumer confidence in new products as they usually state that products must be tested and/or designated safe for use by people who know what they are doing. In this case, regulation is working in our favour.
However, in the case of nanotechnology, legislation can be tricky. Nanotechnology has never been properly defined. The definitions that do exist contain words like ‘approximately’ and ‘roughly’, terms that make the average lawyer turn green. But there is an added problem when this is applied to the food sector, as our food already consists mainly of nanostructures. Natural nanostructures, but it is almost impossible to make the distinction between a natural and a nanotechnological protein fibril. The solution is actually close at hand. I think that the main focus of legislation should be on the applications involving a potential danger: the persistent nanoparticles. Leave all the rest of nanotechnology out of the regulations, as it is just as safe (or dangerous) as the natural nano-ingredients. Persistent nanoparticles can be easily defined, characterised and in the long-term, detected. Detection is important in terms of enforcing the regulations. Unfortunately, politicians are not sufficiently conversant with the subject matter to take this gamble. So it is entirely possible that we will soon be facing a misshapen monster that will seriously impede all progress in the industry. As a result, all kinds of innovations could be left on the shelf. This would not only deny us as consumers the chance of better food, but it would also give an economic edge to other regions in areas where Europe is currently leading the field. And this would be a great shame.
Frans Kampers
Director Wageningen Bionanotechnology centre BioNT