Fifth FoodDrinkEurope Nanotechnology Stakeholder
Dialogue Day – ‘Potential Food Applications of
Nanotechnology’
Introduction:
On 19 October 2012, FoodDrinkEurope hosted the Fifth Nanotechnology Stakeholder
Dialogue Day in Brussels. The conference, which was chaired by Mr Mike Knowles,
chairperson of FoodDrinkEurope’s nanotechnology expert group, featured an impressive
panel of guest speakers from the worlds of EU public policy, industry and academia. The
purpose of the event was to review progress in the key field of nanotechnology over the past
five years, identifying areas in which excellent progress had been made and also areas in
which improvement was needed.
Mr Knowles introduced the subject matter of the conference as a ‘challenging but highly
rewarding area’. For the food and drink industry he said, nanotechnology could potentially
lead to extended food shelf life, added health and safety benefits and even an improvement
in flavour. The use of nanoscale materials he said can bring benefits for the environment.
Mr Knowles added that although it has been a quiet year for nanotechnology, the position we
stand at today owes much to the creation of public/private partnerships. Regardless of the
fact that the share of world trade has decreased, there still remains economic opportunities in
terms of research and development.
Following Mr Knowles’ introductory comments, each member of the panel was invited to
deliver a short presentation.
Mr Bernard Haber from the Federation of European Specialty Food Ingredients Industries
delivered a presentation entitled: Specialty Food Ingredients: Innovation and
nanotechnology. He was the first of many during the event to remark on the definition of
nanotechnology, noting that it needs to be examined; otherwise everything would be
considered ‘New’. It needs to be revised, made clear, and must bear in mind the novelty
aspect, for example, we have already been using spray drying as a process, and it is now
considered nanotechnology because the keyword ‘novelty’ has been left out. He also said
that there has been very little development on nanotechnology over the past year, and much
more had taken place during 2010 and 2011.
Thomas Schalkhammer from ATTOPHONICS spoke on the subject of Innovation and
nanotechnology – Smart Colours – Food safety aspects and anti-counterfeiting. He remarked
that the potential application of nanotechnology both within and outside the food industry was
discussed, with particular reference made to nano-coating oil fitting equipment, which allows
alteration to surface properties. It was stressed that nano products are not equivalent to nano
materials.
Of importance to the food and drink industry he said, is the application of nanotechnology for
packaging. One such technology involves putting a nano-engineered colour changing patch
on the packaging of bread. This would be sensitive to humidity and would change colour,
reddening as the product begun to expire.
Veronique Garny from CEFIC delivered a presentation entitled Cross Industry Platform –
Working Together. She pointed out that the Cross Industry Platform (CIP), assembled in
2009, has been focussing recently a lot of their attention on a definition of nanotechnology.
They are currently working on a report, which deals with the question ‘is Nano going to be
the next asbestos problem’?
CIP have also found that there is a problem with the measuring technique currently
employed and there is a need to agree on a standard method. She remarked that that they
are hopeful REACH will allow for some changes to the annex. A call for everyone to speak
up on this topic was made.
Georgis Katalangarianakis from the European Commission’ DG Research & Innovation
spoke on the topic of Nano-EHS activity and strategy in the EU. A number of projects he said
are being carried out by DG Research, of which there are a handful that are of particular
interest to the food and drink industry, such as NMP 2011-1.3-1, new methods for
measuring, detection and identification of nanoparticles in products, which was recently
launched. Other projects of interest address that of food packaging.
He pointed out that any risk that exists is not necessarily always associated with the product,
but rather for the employees working during the production process, who must ensure they
follow the safety process strictly. EU Research holds meetings on Nano safety, in which an
open invitation exists.
Stefan Weigel of RIKILT presented on the topic of Nanoparticles in food – Analytical
methods for detection and characterisation. The work undertaken by Nanolyse, which
focuses centrally on food safety, was presented. It falls under the FP7 – Project scheme and
will last until September 2013 (having begun in early 2010). Most projects taken on by
Nanolyse are at least in the validation stage, if not already validated. The tasks that each of
2/4
the 4WPs (Reference materials in matrix, imaging, screening, inorganic NP) carried out were
identified.
David Carlander of ILSI spoke on the issue of NanoRelease Food Additive. This
presentation complimented the previous one by Mr Weigel, focusing on the ILSI
NanoRelease Food Additive project. This public private partnership, with a multi-national
steering committee has five expert task groups formed to deal with different issues, such as
Material Characteristics, Alimentary Canal Models and Regulatory Aspects. However it
shares a common goal, to identify and develop measurement methods for ingested
nanoparticles to determine whether they are likely to be taken up by the body. The progress
made by each of the TGs was also outlined.
Hermann Stamm from JRC delivered a presentation entitled Analytical methods for
nanomaterials in Food Progress in developing testing methods. The work of the JRC he said,
focuses on nanomaterials in consumer products (detection etc.) and safety assessment of
nanomaterials.
It was noted that many issues are present when determining the particle size. Possible
methods such as that of ‘Ensemble’ and ‘Fractionation’ were assessed. Furthermore there is
no standard method which can deal with all types of nanomaterials, aggregates being the
most difficult with only one method available, x-ray diffraction. Issues on Inter Laboratory
testing and validation (how not to get lost) were also examined. With this said he mentioned,
one must also bear in mind the challenges faced, such as sampling and sample preparation.
Peter Ide-Kostic from the European Parliament’s Science and Technology Options
Assessment Unit (STOA) explained that his unit concentrates its efforts on a scientific,
interactive and communicative process that aims to contribute to the formation of public and
political opinion on societal aspects of science and technology. STOA he said, has published
a few notable studies such as that of ‘The Role of Nanotechnology (NT) in Chemical
Substitution: April 2007’, and more recently ‘Nanosafety – Risk Governance of manufactured
of nanoparticles. March 2012.’
Alexandra Nikolakopoulou (& Jean Francois Roche) from the European Commission’s DG
Health and Consumers dealt primarily with the definition that is to be implemented on 13/14th
December 2014.
3/4
It was made abundantly clear that the current definition is subject to change. It does not
reflect the intentions of DG SANCO labelling unit, but rather it is a result of pressure and time
and may take longer to alter due to New Commission Proposal.
Lynn Frewer of Newcastle University’s Centre for Rural Economy (CRE) delivered a
presentation entitled ‘Consumer and citizen acceptance of new food technologies’, the last
presentation of the conference. Different types of risk were studied, alongside societal
responses to technological innovation in the agrifood sector.
Panel Discussion & Conclusion
Following the presentations by each individual speaker, a panel discussion took place, during
which both analytical and labelling challenges were discussed.
Analytical Challenges:
Not all panellists were of the opinion that no additional equipment is needed for testing
nanomaterial. The importance of the availability of validated testing methods alongside with
appropriate sampling and sample preparation was once again highlighted.
Labelling Challenges:
The Commission is aware of the challenge of labelling nanomaterial, given the current status
of definition. An amendment of the nanomaterial definition as currently included in
Regulation 1169/2011 on consumer information exists. Panellists confirmed the
inappropriateness of the current definition to establish meaningful labelling rules.
4/4