Nanotech is no PR nightmare, says Coca-Cola
Food manufacturers have “learned the lessons of GM” and will not allow nanotechnology to spiral into a public relations disaster zone, Coca-Cola has insisted.
Speaking at a hearing of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee last Tuesday, Dr Michael Knowles, vice president, global scientific and regulatory affairs at Coca-Cola, said: “We’ve learned our lessons from genetic modification. We are engaging with the public about nanomaterials before they even get off the laboratory benches and into food.”
Through trade associations, including the Confederation of Food and Drink Industries of the EU (CIAA) and the Food and Drink Federation (FDF), the food industry was holding public meetings with “all of the interested stakeholders” including consumers and environmental pressure groups such as Friends of the Earth, said Knowles. “We will continue to hold these for as long as is needed to gain the confidence of the consumer.”
Nanotechnology promised an exciting range of benefits from the targeted release of nutrients to antimicrobial biofilms and lighter-weight packaging able to block out oxygen, carbon dioxide and moisture, said Knowles. Other interesting applications included nano-sensors that could detect pathogens and nano-sieves that could purify water in developing countries.
However, consumers had to be given a clear understanding of the benefits and potential risks of the technology, said British Retail Consortium director of food and consumer policy Andrew Opie. “We need to take consumers with us.”
The food industry was not opposed in principle to labelling foods containing engineered nanomaterials, said Opie. However, the purpose and value of labelling also needed to be established, given that all nanomaterials would already have undergone a safety assessment before being approved for use.
In response to claims that nanomaterials were already in foods without undergoing rigorous safety assessments, Knowles said all CIAA and FDF members were obligated by law to find out from their suppliers what their products contained. They had also been issued with guidance to remind them of the relevant legislation covering nanomaterials, notably the Novel Food Regulation, which applies to new ingredients produced using novel processes or those with novel properties (as a result of their reduced size, for example).
However, committee chairman John Krebs said that the Sudan-1 affair had highlighted that food industry traceability systems were not as reliable as they could be, adding: “I’m not at all confident that the system is as robust as you suggest.”
How or whether to label engineered nanoparticles is a subject of much debate in Brussels, with the European Parliament arguing that they should be included on ingredients declarations followed by the word ‘nano’
The Commission, by contrast, thinks this is unnecessary given that the materials in question would only be permitted in foods after undergoing a rigorous safety assessment.
