Nanotechnology has commercial potential but consumers are already viewing it as the new GM, says David Edwards
The consumer perspective in terms of food safety and crisis management is of utmost importance to anyone in food and drink. If you lose sight of the consumer perspective, you lose sight of your business.
And one of the key issues that consumers are concerned about and therefore we should be too is nanotechnology. The potential use of nanotechnology, recently described in The Grocer as "the industry's little secret", is generating plenty of headlines and no wonder.
Nanotechnology is clearly an industry with much commercial potential and consumer promise. A recent House of Lords report noted that the new industry is expected to be worth more than $5bn by 2012, with 469 patents already lodged relating to food packaging, products, pesticides and other applications.
Delegates to this year's Consumer Goods Forum Food Safety conference in Washington DC this month were asked if they agreed with the statement that "nanotechnology is emerging as the new GM in the eyes of consumers" and, despite very little practical application of the technology in the industry at this stage, 48% of CEOs agreed.
Why? Consumers realise that the unique properties of nanoparticles might also present unique risks. An issue impact model developed by NSF-CMi shows how consumer 'fright factors', researched by academics in the wake of BSE, influence their perception of risk.
Nanotechnology ticks every box on the list of 'fright factors' thanks to the fact it's new, man-made and hidden. Unless these concerns are addressed and the industry is more transparent even at the research stage, it could be a very hard "sell".
And this is not the only big issue our survey of 4,000 food and drink executives around the world flagged up. More than a third predicted that deliberate contamination arising from fraud, terrorism or blackmail would have a bigger impact than unintentional events arising from simple mistakes.
Although biological risks were still the number one issue, a third thought bioterrorism would have a bigger impact in the future. Let's hope such fears are unfounded.
David Edwards is founding partner of food assurance company NSF-CMi.
The consumer perspective in terms of food safety and crisis management is of utmost importance to anyone in food and drink. If you lose sight of the consumer perspective, you lose sight of your business.
And one of the key issues that consumers are concerned about and therefore we should be too is nanotechnology. The potential use of nanotechnology, recently described in The Grocer as "the industry's little secret", is generating plenty of headlines and no wonder.
Nanotechnology is clearly an industry with much commercial potential and consumer promise. A recent House of Lords report noted that the new industry is expected to be worth more than $5bn by 2012, with 469 patents already lodged relating to food packaging, products, pesticides and other applications.
Delegates to this year's Consumer Goods Forum Food Safety conference in Washington DC this month were asked if they agreed with the statement that "nanotechnology is emerging as the new GM in the eyes of consumers" and, despite very little practical application of the technology in the industry at this stage, 48% of CEOs agreed.
Why? Consumers realise that the unique properties of nanoparticles might also present unique risks. An issue impact model developed by NSF-CMi shows how consumer 'fright factors', researched by academics in the wake of BSE, influence their perception of risk.
Nanotechnology ticks every box on the list of 'fright factors' thanks to the fact it's new, man-made and hidden. Unless these concerns are addressed and the industry is more transparent even at the research stage, it could be a very hard "sell".
And this is not the only big issue our survey of 4,000 food and drink executives around the world flagged up. More than a third predicted that deliberate contamination arising from fraud, terrorism or blackmail would have a bigger impact than unintentional events arising from simple mistakes.
Although biological risks were still the number one issue, a third thought bioterrorism would have a bigger impact in the future. Let's hope such fears are unfounded.
David Edwards is founding partner of food assurance company NSF-CMi.
No comments yet