Professor Lynn J. Frewer
Food and Society Group, Newcastle University, UK
Email.Lynn.Frewer@newcastle.ac.uk
Telephone +44 (0)191 208 8272

• The psychology of risk perception drives public risk attitudes e.g. an involuntary risk over which people have no control is more threatening than one people choose to take
Exposure to unlabelled nanoparticles in consumer products
• Potentially catastrophic risks concern people most
Widespread environmental contamination (e.g. widespread environmental impacts of nanosilver as a biocide)
• Unnatural (technological) risks are more threatening than natural ones
Application of food technology to agrifood production
• Ethical representations and concerns are emerging as an important determinant of consumer decision making
Animal welfare (nanoscale genetics/implanted nanosensors)
Environmental impact of agriculture
Ensuring consumer choice

Use of nanotechnology in food and agriculture
• No definitive “list” available.
• Examples from Agricultural practice
– Soil fertility
– Targeted delivery of nutrients and pesticides to crops
– Nano-iron and carbon nanotubes for soil and water remediation and purification
– Smart pesticides
– Nano-sensors for “tracking” livestock , or detecting illegal veterinary drugs
– Encapsulated vaccines for targeted delivery

• Food manufacture and processing
– Nanofiltration
– Non-fouling surfaces in food preparation
– Meat replacers (Fibrillar protein aggregates)
– Texture improvement (ice-cream, yoghurts)
• Food packaging
– Extension of shelf life
– Improved biodegradability

• Nano-encapsulation
– Protects from gut digestive juices until a target is reached identified by surface interactions)
– Increased bio-activation
• Functional foods
• Nutriceuticals
• Oral vaccines

• Research into the determinants of public acceptance of emerging technologies has occurred subsequent to public rejection of a particular application
• The European public’s rejection of genetic modification of food and crops is frequently interpreted as representing the normative societal response to new technology
• Consumer research has identified predictors of consumer rejection not acceptance .
• Communication with the public about food issues associated with health and environmental impact has focused almost exclusively on risks , while health benefits have been communicated separately

Analysis of ethical issues associated with nanotechnology relkvant to public acceptance
The “ethical matrix”
Applies the principles of
• Autonomy,
• Non-Malfeasance,
• Beneficence
• Justice to different stakeholders or entities
Once identified, Ethical principles can be built into regulation.
Coles, D., & Frewer, L. J. (2013). Nanotechnology applied to European food production
–A review of ethical and regulatory issues. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 34(1), 32-43.

Application of the “Ethical Matrix” to (e.g.) agriculture
Stakeholder /
Entity
Autonomy Non-Malfeasance Beneficence Justice
Nano-product developer
Farmer
Processor
Freedom to develop applications in compliance with regulations
Evidence based freedom to adopt the technology or not
Freedom to select and process raw materials
Test for and minimise potential harm to stakeholders, including economic
Responsible use
Avid harm to animals and the environment through waste disposal
Responsibility to avoid use of supplies that have caused harm to animals and their welfare or to the environment or r human health
Increased profit from successful applications
(e.g. financially and/or in scientific endeavour
Increased profit from improved products and yields.
Ability to benefit from better quality food and greater health benefits without fear of unknown risks.
Improvement in feed and welfare
Clear and consistent regulatory framework and risk assessment processes
Improve welfare of animals and enhance environmental sustainability
Any potential risks should be outweighed by potential benefits for the consumer.
Consumer Informed choice re production and products
Use information to avoid any risks to health or purchasing decisions that support poor animal welfare.
Dispose of nano-waste safely
Respect and maintenance of “telos”* (i.e. an animal’s biological nature).
Animals
Future generations
Optimum quality of life and freedom of movement in primary production
Animal welfare should not be reduced by nanotech applications or their bioaccumulation in the food chain or environment
Improvement in feed and welfare
Respect and maintenance of “telos”* (i.e. an animal’s biological nature).
The
Environment
Maintenance of sustainable natural environment
Appropriate assessment of environmental risks and measures to minimise or eliminate
Use of nano-materials to improve environmental conditions
Measures in place to prevent secondary contamination of other
Coles, D., & Frewer, L. J. (2013). Nanotechnology applied to European food production –A review of ethical and leaching of nano-materials from regulatory issues. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 34(1), 32-43.
sustainability.
land by migration of nano-materials.
products into the environment
Future health and environment should not be jeopardised
Regulatory system should protect future human health, environment and animal welfare including wildlife.
Use of nano-materials to improve environmental conditions and promote sustainability.
Future health and environment should not be jeopardised by current use of nanotechnology

•
Perceived personal benefits
•
Perceived societal benefits (health, economic, social, environmental)
•
Differential accruement of risks and benefits (fairness)
•
Ethical concerns
•
Perceived efficacy of the regulatory framework
•
Perceived personal risks (health, economic, social, environmental
•
Perceived societal risks (health, economic, social, environmental)
Frewer, L. J., Bergmann, K., Brennan, M., Lion, R., Meertens, R., Rowe, G., ... & Vereijken, C. (2011). Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies. Trends in Food
Science & Technology, 22(8), 442-456.

The genetically modified tomato paste – accepted by consumers (1996 )
•
•
•

“Soil Association bans nanomaterials from organic products (Guardian January 2008)

To date, no major consumer response has been observed
What will happen when information becomes available?
What impact does risk and /or benefit information have on established attitudes?

Positive, strong
(established) attitudes
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
Negative, strong
(established) attitude

- GM, conventional production)
organic production)
Information does not have much impact on established attitudes van Dijk, H., Fischer, A. R., de Jonge, J., Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2012). The Impact of Balanced Risk –Benefit Information and Initial Attitudes on Post ‐ Information Attitudes1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(8), 1958-1983.

2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
Moderately negative, ambivalent attitude

Inverse U-shape relation between attitude and attitudinal ambivalence
Highly-
Ambivalent
R
2
= 0.6268
Non-
Ambivalent
Negative
Attitude
Positive
Fischer, A. R., van Dijk, H., de Jonge, J., Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2013). Attitudes and attitudinal ambivalence change towards nanotechnology applied to food production. Public Understanding of Science , 22,7,817-831

Three “segments” of consumers
•
Group 1 (42%) became more negative
•
Less / average education
•
Group 2 (46 %) didn’t change
•
Less / average education
•
Group 3 (12%) became more positive
•
Younger or older
•
Male
•
Highly educated

•
•
Expert opinion- what will determine societal acceptance of nanotechnology?
–
–
Stage 1: Construct elicitation
• 3 applications of nanotechnology at a time (total 10 triadic combinations)
• “which 2 applications of nanotechnology you find similar and why, in terms of societal response”
• “why is the third application different from the other two in terms of societal response”
Stage 2: Rating the constructs
• Rate each of the applications on each elicited construct
• Each expert - a grid with rating of constructs on all applications
–
–
Grids were combined and submitted to GPA and PCA (Promax)
GPA group average perceptual map – relative positions of the applications
Gupta, N., Fischer, A. R., van der Lans, I. A., & Frewer, L. J. (2012). Factors influencing societal response of nanotechnology: an expert stakeholder analysis. Journal of Nanoparticle
Research, 14(5), 1-15.

• Targeted drug delivery
• Neuroimplantable devices
• Encapsulation and delivery of nutrients in food
• Food packaging
• Smart pesticides
• Water filtration
• Soil and water remediation
• Fuel cells
Applications of Nanotechnology
• Chemical sensors
• “Smart Dust” for military use
• Cosmetics
• Nanofabrication
• Sports goods
• Easy to clean surfaces e.g. self cleaning windows
• Inexpensive RFID tags

Comp 2
Concern
Can be misused / abused
Issue of whether benefits accrue to producer or public
Risk
Environmental
No benefits to developing world
Less acceptable to society
Ethical issues
Smart Dust
-3.11
Encapsulation and delivery of nutrients in food
Smart pesticides
Food packaging
Cosmetics
RFID tags
-2.07
1.04
Fuel cells
2.07
3.11
Comp 1
Sports goods
Nano Fabrics
Chemical sensors
Soil-water Remediation
Targeted Drug Delivery
Water filtration
Social Benefits
Socioeconomic
Environmental
Human health
Acceptable to society
Neuro-implantable devices
No Concern
Necessary useful
Gupta, N., Fischer, A. R., van der Lans, I. A., & Frewer, L. J. (2012). Factors influencing societal response of nanotechnology: an expert stakeholder analysis. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 14(5), 1-15.

Replication and Conclusions
• Results replicated using experts in
– North America
– Australia
– Singapore
– India
• Major determinant of societal acceptance
– Societal risk and concern
– Physical proximity of application to end-user
– Time frame for applications: future vs. now
• Food not seen as a priority development
• (Perceived) benefit an important determinant of acceptance)
Gupta, N., Fischer, A. R., George, S., & Frewer, L. J. (2013). Expert views on societal responses to different applications of nanotechnology: a comparative analysis of experts in countries with different economic and regulatory environments. Journal of nanoparticle research, 15(8), 1-15.

Gupta, N. (2013) The views of experts and the public regarding societal preferences for innovation in nanotechnology. Wageningen University press, Wageningen).

• Consumers are more positive towards agrifood nanotechnology applications than experts think they are
•
Acceptability will depend on labelling and informed choice
• Failure to inform consumers will fuel rejection
• Effective communication (including addressing issues of risk/benefit uncertainty ) is important

Are consumers more accepting of agrifood technologies?
Some hypotheses
• Technological innovation applied to food production per se is not societally unacceptable .
– (Perceived) characteristics of specific technologies, or their application, may potentially be drivers of societal negativity
• It is too early in the implementation trajectory for societal negativity associated with specific applications of nanotechnology to have arisen
– Consumers are not familiar with either the technology or its application, or
• Learnings from the application of GM food technologies have been implemented in the case of nanotechnology
– Which can subsequently be applied to agrifood applications of synthetic biology.
Frewer, L.J., Coles, D. et al, in preparation.

How to align technology with societal preferences
• Information regarding societal and consumer preferences is most relevant prior to new product development, and prior to any marketing activities being operationalized
– there is still time to “ fine tune ” the design of different applications
• Important to assess consumer responses to the first generation of products developed.

The questions to be asked of nanotechnology applied to food production and other applications.
• Do the applications to the agrifood sector meet a recognised societal need ?
• Can similarities with potentially societally controversial aspects of previously applied agrifood technologies be identified?
• Are additional issues raised over and above those associated with other enabling technologies applied to food production?
• What needs to be done to “ fine tune ” the development and implementation of agrifood applications of synthetic biology to align with
– consumer priorities
– adoption and commercialisation of specific applications?

Main Expert Group
Academia
Industry
Government/Regulatory authorities
Consumer representative group
Media
Specific professional field
1. Biochemistry & Toxicology
2.Environment & Agriculture
3. Risk perception & Communication
4. Polymer technology
5. Material Science
6. Chemical Sensors
7. Medical
8. Food
9. Water filtration
10. Cosmetics
11. Polymer/Fabrics
12. Ministry of Agriculture
13. Ministry of Defence
14. European Commission
15. Food Safety Authority
16. Consumers and nanotechnology
17. Biotechnology Journalism
Country
UK
UK
Germany
The Netherlands
Ireland
The Netherlands
The Netherlands
Belgium
The Netherlands
The Netherlands
Germany
The Netherlands
The Netherlands
Belgium
Ireland
UK
Germany