Government must kick off nano debate

That was a strong theme emerging from an open day organised by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) last month. Committee members chaired debates on nanotechnology and animal cloning attended by representatives from food manufacturers, researchers, consultants and pressure groups at the FSA's headquarters in London.

Trust building​

One member of a group discussing nanotechnology said: "No government committee has so far been set up on this as recommended [following the publication of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology's Nanotechnologies and Food report in January 2010]. There needs to be a dialogue with the NGOs [non-governmental organisations] ... we need a code of conduct, which would be trust building."​

FSA chairman Lord Rooker, who also attended the debate, said bridge building between consumers and the industry would be more likely to be successful if it was done by scientists, instead of politicians. "The public doesn't trust ministers,"​ he said.

Delegates argued that the ACNFP should not be the main coordinating body for debate, because it was more focused on the business of novel foods assessment. The FSA, continuing the role it had adopted in setting up the Nanotechnologies and Food Discussion Group in January 2011, could lead public communication and discussions. It could also meet with key stakeholder groups, some delegates said. Social media could be used to canvas public opinion.

Closed doors​

However, Rooker warned food and drink processors that they should be prepared to be more transparent on their use of nanotechnology, commercial sensitivities accepted. "The big silence is coming from the manufacturers. If food companies don't share what they are doing and keep behind closed doors, it could start the rumour mill going."​

The term nanotechnology is often defined as applying to materials of 100 nanometres or less in size and is increasingly used to refer to artificially engineered particles.