Nanotechnology

& public opinion

Hilary Sutcliffe, Director, MATTER

About MATTER

Think tank promoting a responsible approach to innovation

Focus on social benefit, effective governance and involvement of society

Multi-stakeholder working, inclusive approach

About Hilary Sutcliffe

Set up Responsible Nano Forum in 2008, became MATTER 2010

Developed Responsible Nano Code of Conduct for Business

New public dialogue on Nano Products 2014/5

On World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Nanotechnologies

BSI/ISO Nanotechnology Standards Committee

CEFIC Nano Governance Project

Created pilot website www.nanoandme.org for public to

respond to requests for information from public consultations

So what does the public think about

nanotechnologies in food?

They have been asked….

Nanotechnology & Food: FSA Citizen’s Forum; TNA-BMRB Report 2011

An Evidence Review of Public Attitudes to Emerging Food Technologies – Executive Summary, Brook Lyndhurst 2009.

NanoDialogues, Experiments with Public Engagement with Science - DEMOS 2007

Small Talk: Discussing Nanotechnologies. Melanie Smallman Adam Nieman 2006

Nano Jury UK – Provisional Recommendations, Greenpeace 2005

Nanologue - European Union Framework 6 Programme on the Social and Ethical Implications of Nanotechnologies.

Deepen Project - Reconfiguring Responsibility - Deepening Debate on Nanotechnology; a research report from FP7 Funded Deepen project, Prof Phil McNaughten, Durham Uni

Nano & Me Consultation Analysis – Prepared by Hilary Sutcliffe and Craig Freer on behalf

of the Responsible Nano Forum – 2009

What does the public

think about

nano & food?

Opinions wide-ranging with some

excitement about potential benefits

- but concern focuses on…

Is it really necessary? Are you just messing around with food because you can, or just to make more money?

Would more conventional approaches achieve similar goals - such as government campaigns for healthy eating in relation to ‘nutraceuticals’ for example?

How can we tell?

Questions about whose interests would really be served by nanotechnology

Suspicion that industry gain would be pursued to the detriment of consumer interests

For example by raising prices or providing lower quality, marginally effective or even “risky” products.

Questions about whether the benefits associated with nano and food applications were worth the risk

Reflected a considerable focus on concerns about risk

Particularly about impacts on long-term health and the environment

Observations…

These dialogues were done when there was little information about the behaviours of nano materials

Much hype about nano as a technology

Concerns about risks related to newness & other areas

…but not much evidence of actual products

and now?

Focus more on nano as a materials technology - Grey Goo more of a worry for biotech!

So how should business

respond?

We asked Investors, retail buyers and NGOs

Explored their concerns…

…and views on what businesses can do to build confidence in their innovations

Responding also to the public?

We also analysed public views in over 23 publications & dialogues in Europe around all emerging technologies

Both reports on our website www.matterforall.org

So how should

companies respond?

Openness about when a technology is being used – a ‘no brainer’

A richer picture needed about benefit

When it goes wrong, who carries the can?

A desire for trustworthy and independent sources of reassurance

Don’t force it on us – it’s about choice

Dialogue – how will we know are being listened to?

What’s the benefit for us?

Understand & mitigate risks - including social, ethical & environmental

Consider how each department in your organisation can practice Responsible Innovation

Involve stakeholders from the start

Check out our Prezi on involving

stakeholders in Innovation