Nanotechnology in Food : Ethical Issues

What are the Issues?

Since widespread public concerns about genetically modified food ten years ago, the Government and the EC have repeatedly stressed a desire to ensure that nanotechnologies should not become 'another GM'. And of all the uses of nanotechnology, it is indeed in food where this question resurfaces most. But while there are some similarities, there are important differences. Firstly, is there a basic ethical question? People who are concerned generally about scientists 'tampering with our food' might well raise concerns about nanotechnology in foods. But nano products would be called 'novel foods' not GM. It doesn't involve moving genes out of their natural context. It's more about additivies and changes to food processing than making fundamenetal alterations to plant or animal species. If there is a basic ethical objection it would be its perceived 'unnaturalness'. Many would point out that the species we rely on for our food have been subject to so much change over millenia that the idea of 'natural' has lost much of its meaning. But the primary UK organic agriculture body, the Soil Association, has come out strongly against manufactured nanoparticles (REF) for much the same reason that it opposes most inorganic fertilisers and pesticides. In its radical view, the natural organic way is always best. Putting the question another way, is there anything about the particular human interventions in food using nanotechnology that should raise our concern? This is a case by case situation. Techniques for food processing that depended on the nanoscale would need to be subject to as much careful scrutiny as any other food technology, but one would not object just because it was nano. Ice cream is a processed food which relies on some nanoscale processes, but we are used to it. Changes in the food itself are more sensitive. If nanotechnology in future made some changes to how crop species function, for example, we would have to consider whether we know enough what we're doing. If it's a question of additives the same applies. So the main issues seem to be - health and environmental risk, - who is driving the development of nanofoods, and do we agree with their reasons, motives and goals? - whether we actually need the innovations that may be offered, if we think our food is all right as it is.

Health, Safety, Environment and Labelling

Will the products really be safe for humans and the environment? This means making sure that all the products have the appropriate safety testing before they are allowed to be sold, and that companies and scientists are open about the testing they have done. If nanoscale particles are used, we need to be sure that these are types that would not give rise to any more risk to human health or the environment than is the case with conventionally grown or prepared foods. As the Food Standards Agency points out, nothing we eat can be called absolutely safe. How precautionary should we be if lives may be saved? To find out more go to our pages on [LINK] and on [the ethics issues in making risk decisions].

Should there be labels on food products using certain nanotechnologies? This is a vexed question. Some say definitely not, because this would be completely misleading. Unlike GM, there is nothing called 'nano' that is done to a food that you can say it's got some special property whose presence we can test for. In itself, the mere presence for example of a nanoparticle is neither an ethical nor a safety issue as such. It would just create a stigma without any proper scientific foundation. Others argue that if there is something that scientists do that justifies them talking about the benefits of nanotechnology in food, but if people are worried about it, they have a right to know about it, and avoid it if they wish to. Practically, what should we label and how? If we would now have to label ice cream and powdered milk as nano, what would that tell us?

Who is Driving Nanofood?

The next question is a social concern that most innovations in this area are by companies who exist in a highly competitive and therefore secretive environment. Companies in turn are fearful of opposition, perhaps from the media or NGOs, and have become reluctant to talk what they are doing. The result is that reliable public information about nanotechnologies and food is hard to come by. This is not a good scenario for gaining public acceptance, because, as many surveys about public trust show, people are uneasy about the commercial sector and the factors which drive it. Unfamiliarity and secrecy could lead to the associations with GM which companies are trying to avoid.

Do we need nanofood?

This leads to the fourth question. Do we need food modified using the nanoscale, partcularly if there might be risks involved? Fortified foods, adding vitamins and essential trace elements are usually seen fairly positively. There is a strong case that novel ways of introducing these into staple crops could make immense positive impact on global malnutrition, and nanotechnologies may have a role to play here. But in the UK, although we may have bad diets, few are truly malnourished. The basic ethical case for nanofoods is not strong, since most people would not need the nutrients and fortifcations if we had good diets. It seems to be more a case of justifying nano foods to help us address our ingrained harmful behaviours, or to make better foods available to those trapped in poverty. Here, some of the applications seeking to reduce fat or salt content in fatty foods could be of real value in this respect. If we could solve poverty and all change to good diets, the case for nutrient supplemented nanofoods in the UK would be poor, but until we can, there seems to be an ethical justification.

There is a better ethical case for so called nutraceutricals, where additional chemicals are promoted that might help our bodies fight a form of cancer or some other disease. Some conventional foods like some brands of margarine and yoghurt already do this for lowering cholesterol levels. If there is some expectation of efficacy, there seems a good ethical case for using nanoscale methods to do this, like encapsulating fish oil droplets in a nanoparticle, provided issues of safety and metabolic change have been properly addressed. There is a blurring between food and medicine here. If there would be significant doubt about the risks of certain nanoparticles, but a health benefit were claimed, then the appropriate balance of risks and benefits would need to be considered in a medical context rather than as a food issue.

If there are real benefits for all sorts of people at what point should we say 'go ahead'? But an imposed pervasiveness of a technology raises questions about those might then be the losers. Our society has to consider what are its obligations to those who object to certain foods, but are given no realistic means to avoid what they object to, especially if they are poor.

The Future : Beware False Prophets?

It may be fun to think radically about the future, but there are ethical concerns that we should not to give too much credence to speculations about miraculous scientific foods. When scientists project into the far future they are not doing so as scientists any more. What they 'some scientists believe will happen' is just speculation and it may be driven by their private beliefs or agendas more than their science. Scientific speculations have a habit of failing to take account other important values. Nanotechnology has been much criticised for its tendency to hype and making exaggerated claims. Most of the future scenarios about making abundant artifical nanofoods, regardless of resources, or being able to indulge eating what we like and maintain a healthy diet, are probably pie in the sky. A moment's reflection on economic and social realities and injustices suggests that the idea of having a personalised diet for each of 60 million UK people will never happen, except for a few rich enough to afford their own individual technology. From an ethical point of view these exaggerations are not always harmless. Historians and philosophers of technology point out that giving too much credence to extraordinarily unlikely future ideas focuses attention away from more immediate and realistic issues. It can also promote a false impression in sociey of the inevitablility of certain technologies which were not inevitable.

The values and issues that are glossed over in future speculations may be very serious indeed. If it ever proved possible to make at least some of our present foods from synthetic materials, on any scale that might rival conventional crops and animals, this would have major social impacts in the culture and for conventional agriculture. Food is not just fuel for humans, with production efficiency as its overriding value. It is a vital and central ingredient in all human cultures and societies. Such scifi developments would need very careful societal debate, long before embarking on such a project. Whether they would be seen as something to be welcomed or a development to be avoided at all costs is far from clear. Futurologists are paid to dream about these things, but based on today's knowledge, it seems rather pointless to speculate, when there are more realistic present issues of an dangerously warming climate, food insecurity, and scarcity of water and soil.

This brings us to the last point, which maybe should be the first point. What is the opportunity cost of nanotechnology applied to UK food, if the objective benefits are fairly marginal, compared with what we might have done with the same skils and resources to address eother global or local needs that are more urgent? The fear is that the market for nanotechnologies in food, as in other fields, will responds to those who can pay, and will miss the far greater needs of those who cannot pay, or at best regard them as a secondary objective whose benefits are only come in a small delayed trickle. Page under construction

What next?

If you would like to join in the discussion, click on Tell us what you think.

Nano&Me Ethics Pages

Ethical & Social Issues Hub
Big Issues about Small Nano
Ethics of Nanotechnology and Food
Ethics of Nanotechnology and Packaging
How Risky?
Ethics of Nanotechnology in Medicine
Enhancing Myself?
What's ethics got to do with Nano?
What's ethics got to do with science and scientists?

What is ethics actually?
What are social issues?
And what about Risk?

Case Study 1 : Diagnosis before I get sick?
Case Study 2 : Making me Smarter?
Case Study 3 : Enhancing our Food?

Can I have a say, please? Ethics of Nanotechnology and Food Ethics of Nanotechnology and Packaging How Risky? Ethics of Nanotechnology in Medicine Enhancing Myself?