13

Nanotechnology in
Nutraceuticals and
Functional Foods
Production to Consumption
Corin Agoris, Muhammad Imam, Aditya Grover,
and Yashwant V. Pathak

Contents
13.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................266
13.2 Consumer uncertainty and low consumer knowledge .......................266
13.3 Naturalness of nanofoods ....................................................................267
13.4 Regulations ...........................................................................................267
13.5 Nanotechnology versus other food innovations .................................268
13.6 Nanotechnology labeling .....................................................................269
13.7 Government versus corporate push for public discourse ...................270
13.8 Media coverage .....................................................................................271
13.9 Food packaging ....................................................................................271
13.10 Dietary laws ..........................................................................................271
13.11 Conclusions ...........................................................................................272
References .......................................................................................................272

Imagine a new kind of food, dramatically lowered in fat, salt and sugar
but tasting just as good as the real thing—in fact, it is the real thing.
Thanks to nanotechnology, such foods could soon become reality. Yet
their promising future is already in jeopardy.

How to Swallow Nanofood

New Scientist, 2010

265
 13.1 Introduction
Nanoscience and nanotechnology are relatively young fields of science that
are still developing. Only recently have these ideas been used for practical
applications. One such application is food. Many people’s lives and culture
center on the act of eating and food itself; from just taking in enough nutrients
to survive, all the way to big businesses focusing on its development, mar-
keting, and sale. Indeed, it was only a matter of time before nanotechnology
infiltrated into the food industry itself.
At the same time, the rise of food innovations that employ nanotechnology begs
the simple question: How do consumers perceive food nanotechnology? The
Downloaded by [Cornell University] at 06:01 19 October 2016

question is relevant because further investments in research and development of

food nanotechnology are reliant on whether consumer attitudes buy into nano-
technology. Undeniably, if the intended public does not have confidence in an
idea, cannot see its need, or even views it as unsafe, the concept will probably
not last long. Unlike other applications of nanotechnology, such as in medicine
or pharmacology, applications of nanotechnology in the food industry have a
higher threshold for public acceptance (Chaudhry, Castle, and Watkins 2010).
This is due to the fact that consumers’ attitudes are dependent on a multitude of
factors that range from media exposure to “perceived naturalness.” Factors such
as framing effects, consumer trust, risk-benefit analysis, government regulations,
corporate dissemination of information, and environmental risks have serious
implications on consumer acceptance of nanofood products. Also, inherent cul-
tural biases such as religion, income, and education play a significant role in the
factors that affect public perception of nanotechnology. Whether nanoparticles
are responsible for increased nutritional value and food preservation is a subject
of much debate. Nanoparticles may be responsible for detrimental side effects
on humans or the environment. Since research is ongoing in these fields, as
it stands now, public understanding of nanotechnology is limited. And con-
sumer cost-benefit analysis is often swayed by the fear of the unknown.

13.2 Consumer uncertainty and low consumer knowledge

Consumer uncertainty about food safety is ubiquitous in the food chain. These
uncertainties are the primary reason for the establishment of food safety poli-
cies. Consumer attitudes about food are not just limited to food safety poli-
cies. It can affect the research and development of food nanotechnology. As
of 2013, there were over 2300 nanotechnology products already in the global
market. Of these, over 100 products are food and beverage, with substantial
expansion of this market to be expected. Several of the world’s largest food
processing companies, including Heinz, Kraft, and Nestle, are rapidly invest-
ing in the nanofood industry and are taking definitive steps to commercialize
these products. As consumers demand for better quality foods, longer shelf
life, and environmentally friendly products, there has been a considerable

266 Nanotechnology in Nutraceuticals

 push for innovations, which has helped open investments in the nanofood
market (Alfadul and Elneshwy 2010).
It is important to note that consumer attitudes have not yet crystallized. A large
proportion of consumers are undecided, if not incognizant toward the issue
of nanofood. Although attitudes may be ambivalent toward new food innova-
tions in general, several studies have shown that there is a positive relationship
between awareness and the belief that benefits outweigh risks (Casolania et al.
2015). Their perspectives can fluctuate depending on new information (Fischer
et al. 2013). Eliminating the fear of the unknown and the need to fill the knowl-
edge gap are essential steps going forward. In fact, a study demonstrated that
only 46% of European Union citizens were even aware of nanotechnology itself.
Downloaded by [Cornell University] at 06:01 19 October 2016

Indeed the lack of awareness, specifically for food applications of nanotech-

nology, remains a huge obstacle to overcome. For instance, another study in
Italy demonstrated that the lack of awareness increased considerably from
58% to 84% among the public (Casolania et al. 2015). Nevertheless, consumer
acceptance is not only entirely based on whether consumers feel positive from
the risk assessment of nanofoods but also dependent on consumer trust (De
Bakker et al. 2014).

13.3 Naturalness of nanofoods

According to the Institute for Environmental Decisions, nanofood public
acceptance has been shown to be heavily dependent on two factors. These
two factors are the perceived benefits of nanofood and “naturalness” of nano-
foods (Chun 2009). For example, nanofood additives in wines can affect con-
sumer perceptions because some can see it as “tampering” with winemaking
traditions. On the other hand, nanofoods can also be marketed as preserv-
ing the naturalness because they can decrease pesticide usage during grape
cultivation (Casolania et al. 2015). As a result, any innovation toward food,
whether it be genetically modified crops to nanotechnology, will go a long
way toward consumer acceptance if the public perceives it to be natural and
can see the benefits of having such additions in their food.

13.4 Regulations
Due to the fact of minimal consumer knowledge, the acceptance for nano-
food products depends on their trust of responsible actors associated with
the nanofood market. The evolving nature of consumer interaction with food
nanotechnology can be seen throughout the development of regulations by
governing entities.
In 2004, the European Union Commission began discussing for the first time
in its history how to regulate food nanotechnology through its publication

Nanotechnology in Nutraceuticals and Functional Foods 267

 of Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology. By 2012, the European
Commission law has evolved to a premarket approval system that analyzes
food nanotechnology on a case by case basis (Salvi 2015). The United States has
had similar progress. In 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
held its first meeting to discuss growth in the use of nanotechnology food
products. A year before, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held
its first meeting to provide information to the public regarding nanoscale
materials (Kumari and Yadav 2014).
In 2006, Taiwan led the world in imposing regulations to boost consumer
knowledge by subjecting all nanofood products to on-site inspections of their
manufacturing plants. It did this by defining nanofoods as “food products that
Downloaded by [Cornell University] at 06:01 19 October 2016

contain main functional ingredients with sizes in the range 1–100 nm, and
that also show unique properties or improved functionality resulting from the
presence of such ingredients.”

13.5 Nanotechnology versus other food innovations

Undeniably, consumer acceptance of nanotechnology has been negatively
affected by past innovations in food technology. Controversies regarding pes-
ticide usage, bovine somatotrophin growth hormones, salmonella outbreaks,
genetically modified (GM) foods, and mad cow disease have had a considerably
detrimental effect on public trust in food safety. Nanotechnology can suffer
the same fate as GM foods, which are now the target of multinational boycott
campaigns. To sidestep a similar crisis, nanotechnology proponents say that it
is important to encourage greater public participation in evaluating the risks
of food nanotechnology. If consumers are not satisfied, nanofoods can become
the next target of a major boycott campaign calling for “nano-free” products.
Simultaneously, compared to other food technologies such as genetically engi-
neered foods, nanotechnology has experienced more consumer acceptance.
Consumers have shown greater degree of acceptance for nanofoods than
foods modified by genetic engineering (Cook and Fairweather 2007).
Consumer acceptance of nanofood is often linked to consumer acceptance
of genetically modified foods. Consumer acceptance on nanofood will be
dependent on proper dissemination of information. One only needs to look
at the lessons learned on consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods.
Consumer trust in government entities and industry companies was very low,
while simultaneously consumer trust in risks reported by environmentalist
groups was higher among the public. When environmentalists gave negative
information, consumer acceptance for genetically modified foods significantly
decreased. This suggests that consumer acceptance of information will be
dependent on the source of the information as well. And when information
from government or industry representatives conflicted with environmen-
talist information, a study demonstrated that when consumers are provided

268 Nanotechnology in Nutraceuticals

 conflicting information, consumers are more likely to believe in prior beliefs
or stereotypes (Costa-Font, Gil, and Traill 2008).
Companies marketing nanofood have attempted to frame their products as
friendly to the environment. A group consisting of German food industry
corporations, research groups, and the Munich University of Technology
produced nanofood packaging that was nonsticky. The group advertised its
product as environmentally friendly despite concerns that nanoparticles could
be released into the environment during recycling or through waste streams
(Alfadul and Elneshwy 2010).

13.6 Nanotechnology labeling

Downloaded by [Cornell University] at 06:01 19 October 2016

How do consumers view food nanotechnology? According to some reviews,

people are “ambiguous and pessimistic” regarding food nanotechnology appli-
cations (Kumari and Yadav 2014). However, what does that exactly mean? For
that matter, how do consumers even perceive food? For example, today’s con-
sumer perceptions of “natural” and “green” are so positive that these terms
are used liberally. The ambiguity that surrounds these terms in the public
perception is also applicable to “food nanotechnology.” For example, silver
is used for sanitary cleaning purposes. Silver in its nanocompound form has
much stronger potency and can have many other properties. Should silver be
advertised as food nanotechnology? Will consumers find the use the nano-
technology applications of silver acceptable? Should this information even be
let known to the consumer? Regardless of whether this information is shared
with consumers, silver is so widely used that it “is likely to fall below any
regulatory threshold” (O’Leary and Governo 2014).
It is not unusual for consumers to interact with food products unbe-
knownst to have nanoparticles in them. A study by The Project on Emerging
Nanotechnologies showed that “in 96 leading consumer food products that it
found included nanoparticles not advertised by the manufacturer.” Its study
does not stop there. According to its assessment, thousands of consumer
products with nanoparticles are in the market without any label that these
particles have nanoparticles (O’Leary and Governo 2014).
Consumers have a fundamental right to be informed and to choose. The moti-
vations behind consumer preferences for labeling indicate that consumers
want to use labeling to learn more information and a desire to choose (Patra
et al. 2009). Consumer studies in Europe have shown the importance behind
nanotechnology product labeling. Furthermore, these European studies have
consistently shown that consumer interest groups desire for any product with
synthetic nanoparticles to be specifically labeled to indicate nanoparticle
usage. Moreover, various groups have even demanded for mandatory labeling.
It is interesting to also note that nanotechnology labeling has had a unique
situation in which technology that has nothing to do with nanomaterials have

Nanotechnology in Nutraceuticals and Functional Foods 269

 been labeled as nano. For example, products such as iPod Nano, Tata Nano,
and Logitech Nano have marketed themselves as nanotechnology products
but in fact have nothing to do with nanotechnology. In contrast, products
that should be labeled nano, such as several food products, have avoided the
use of the label. This shows fear of consumer acceptance of nanotechnology
in the food industry (Duncan 2011). Indeed, public knowledge of nanofood
is very low, considering “70% of Americans had heard little or nothing about
nanotechnology” (Peter D. Hart Research Associates 2009).

13.7 Government versus corporate push for public discourse

Downloaded by [Cornell University] at 06:01 19 October 2016

There has been a push for governments to engage the public through trust-
building initiatives to increase public acceptance of nanofoods. At the mul-
tinational level, both the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
and the World Health Organization have called for trust-building through
oversight, transparency, and public involvement.
Government-led initiatives such as the National Nanotechnology Initiative in
the United States have sponsored studies that initiate public dialogue regarding
nanofoods. The European Union-funded Nanotechnology Engagement Group
has called for accessible maps that show the process of food development
from regulations to responsibilities (Doubleday 2007; Jung and Lee 2014). Most
notably, it has pressed for government agencies to be transparent about the
unknowns regarding nanofood science and policy. These recommendations
have had an instrumental impact on government efforts to increase consumer
acceptance of nanofood. To illustrate this, the FDA created a special committee
known as the Nanotechnology Task Force. This committee recommended more
predictability in FDA regulations by having more specific guidelines regard-
ing nanofoods and more communication with the public (News in Brief 2007).
Governments have also pushed for greater public engagement by giving uni-
versities and nongovernmental organizations access to government resources
regarding nanofood. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute
for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) has increased efforts for curriculum develop-
ment and graduate studies programs for better understanding of nanofoods
while promoting funding for studies that show innovative ways to initiate
public discussion on nanofoods (Watson, Gergely, and Janus 2011).
Nevertheless, government efforts are not enough or in some cases not best
suited for public discourse on nanofoods. The food industry itself needs to
engage the public. Presently, the food industry has been mostly detached from
these efforts. For example, the United Kingdom’s House of Lords Science and
Technology Committee reported that the food industry was not at all transpar-
ent in nanofood technology (Nanofood for Thought 2010). The food industry
has mostly engaged with the public only to promote new food products rather
than address public concerns. Food industry representatives have indicated a

270 Nanotechnology in Nutraceuticals

 reluctance to communicate information to consumers out of fear the public
discourse could take a negative turn in terms of consumer acceptance for
nanofoods (De Bakker et al. 2014). The food industry’s reluctance could back-
fire generating further distrust and lack of consumer acceptance of nanofoods.

13.8 Media coverage

Studies on media reporting on nanotechnology have shown that media cover-
age is inadequate but fair. This means that media coverage has provided a fair
assessment on the risk and benefits of nanofood technologies. However, at the
same time, media coverage has not provided enough content to educate the
Downloaded by [Cornell University] at 06:01 19 October 2016

public on nanofood. There is serious risk that coverage on nanofood could be

“event-driven” (Dudo, Choi, and Scheufele 2011). The risk of a media-fueled
food scare can increase consumer anxieties by providing conflicting narra-
tives and prescriptions to address crisis (Fuentes and Fuentes 2015).
The changing nature of media is also affecting framing effects. For examples,
consumer self-education is shifting away from traditional media outlets such
as newspapers, TV, and magazines, over to Facebook, Twitter, and other social
media through the Internet (Shan et al. 2015).

13.9 Food packaging

Regarding nanofood, there are differences in public acceptance of food and food
packaging. The uncertainty with how nanoparticles in food packaging affects
the food is cause for concern among consumers. For instance, a nanotechnology
product that improves food product shelf life, but it is unknown whether the
nanoparticles in the food packaging can migrate to the food itself affects con-
sumer acceptance of nanofood products. A study in Switzerland demonstrated
that the public was more willing to purchase food products with nanotechnol-
ogy use in food packaging than food products with nanofood additives (Conti,
Satterfield, and Harthorn 2011). Nanoparticle usage in packaging is just as wide-
spread as nanoparticles in food products (Alfadul and Elneshwy 2010).

13.10 Dietary laws

Religion can also affect consumer acceptance of all types of food as well.
Nanofood is not an exception. Additives of nanofood may be subject to
dietary laws such as kosher and halal, Judaism and Muslim dietary restric-
tions, respectively. In the United States, 22 states have kosher-fraud legisla-
tion. The market is heavily affected by private regulators that deem whether
these products follow religious guidelines. The halal food market is estimated
to be worth $700 billion and is often regulated by Islamic government entities.

Nanotechnology in Nutraceuticals and Functional Foods 271

 How can nanofood particles violate religious laws? For example, Muslims may
want their food products absolutely free from alcohol or certain animal prod-
ucts. And nanofood particles derived from such sources can deem the food
“impure” (Eliasi and Dwyer 2002). Although this is a topic of much interest
in the food industry, very little research has even been conducted to see how
religious dietary laws impact the nanofood market (A Meaty Question 2013).

13.11 Conclusions
All in all, the future of consumer acceptance depends significantly on how
nanofood is introduced into the market. Consumer perspectives have not solidi-
Downloaded by [Cornell University] at 06:01 19 October 2016

fied over the prospects of nanofood. In fact, the driving theme of most papers
reviewed by our study of nanofood literature is the lack of consumer knowledge.
With this in mind, the nanofood market is always susceptible to market scares
and the spread of unreliable information because consumer knowledge is so
shallow. Despite the significant potential of nanofood to revolutionize the food
industry and the significant growth the nanofood market has seen in the past
decade, the public is generally unaware of the benefits or harms of nanofood.
Consumer acceptance will be widely influenced by how transparent corpora-
tions are in presenting nanofood to the market and how governments regulate
nanofood products. The push for nanofood labeling is important because as
the market expands, more and more consumers will want to know and learn
about how nanofood impacts them. As a result of the diverse range of fac-
tors that influence consumer acceptance, it is impossible to predict exactly
how nanofood will be perceived by consumers down the line. However, that
does not mean that the nanofood market cannot learn from the mistakes of
the marketing strategies of other previous food innovations. As it becomes
clearer that consumers perceive food innovations differently from other inno-
vations, certain steps should be taken to address consumer concerns. Without
consumer acceptance, the nanofood market cannot gain traction and con-
tinue sustainable growth. To gain consumer acceptance, consumers should be
treated like shareholders with a vested interest in the progress of the nano-
food market. This means that the food industry and government should pro-
actively engage with the public to gain their trust, confidence, and acceptance.

References
Alfadul, S., and Elneshwy, A. (2010). Use of nanotechnology in food processing, packaging
and safety—Review. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development,
10(6), 2719.
Casolania, N., Greehy, G. M., Fantini, A., Chiodo, E., and Mccarthy, M. B. (2015). Consumer
perceptions of nanotechnology applications in Italian wine. Italian Journal of Food
Science, 27(2), 93–107.
Chaudhry, Q., Castle, L., and Watkins, R. D. (2010). Nanotechnologies in food [electronic
resource]. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry.

272 Nanotechnology in Nutraceuticals

 Chun, A. L. (2009). Will the public swallow nanofood? Nature Nanotechnology, 4(12), 790–791.
doi:10.1038/nnano.2009.359.
Conti, J., Satterfield, T., and Harthorn, B. H. (2011). Vulnerability and social justice as factors
in emergent U.S. nanotechnology risk perceptions. Risk Analysis: An International
Journal, 31(11), 1734–1748. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01608.x.
Cook, A. J., and Fairweather, J. R. (2007). Intentions of New Zealanders to purchase lamb or
beef made using nanotechnology. British Food Journal, 109, 675–688.
Costa-Font, M., Gil, J. M., and Traill, W. B. (2008). Consumer acceptance, valuation of and
attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy.
Food Policy, 33, 99–111. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.07.002.
De Bakker, E., de Lauwere, C., Hoes, A., and Beekman, V. (2014). Responsible research and
innovation in miniature: Information asymmetries hindering a more inclusive “nano-
food” development. Science and Public Policy (SPP), 41(3), 294–305.
Doubleday, R. (2007). Risk, public engagement and reflexivity: Alternative framings of the
Downloaded by [Cornell University] at 06:01 19 October 2016

public dimensions of nanotechnology. Health, Risk and Society, 9(2), 211–227. doi:
10.1080/13698570701306930.
Dudo, A., Choi, D.-H., and Scheufele, D. A. (2011). Food nanotechnology in the news.
Coverage patterns and thematic emphases during the last decade. Appetite, 56, 78–89.
Duncan, T. V. (2011). The communication challenges presented by nanofoods. Nature
Nanotechnology, 6(11), 683. doi:10.1038/nnano.2011.193.
Eliasi, J. R., and Dwyer, J. T. (2002). Kosher and Halal: Religious observances affecting dietary
intakes. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 102(7), 911–913.
Fischer, A., van Dijk, H., de Jonge, J., Rowe, G., and Frewer, L. (2013). Attitudes and attitudi-
nal ambivalence change towards nanotechnology applied to food production. Public
Understanding of Science, 22(7), 817–831.
Fuentes, M. A., and Fuentes, C. A. (2015). Risk stories in the media: Food consumption, risk
and anxiety. Food, Culture and Society: An International Journal of Multidisciplinary
Research, 18, 71–87. doi:10.2752/175174415X14101814953882.
“How to swallow nanofood.” Editorial. (2010). New Scientist, 206(2761), 5.
Jung, H. J., and Lee, J. (2014). The impacts of science and technology policy interventions
on university research: Evidence from the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative.
Research Policy, 43, 74–91. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.07.001.
Kumari, A., and Yadav, S. K. (2014). Nanotechnology in agri-food sector. Critical Reviews in
Food Science and Nutrition, 54(8), 975–984.
“A meaty question: Who should regulate kosher and halal food?” (2013). The Economist,
February 9.
“Nanofood for thought.” Editorial. (2010). Nature Nanotechnology, 5(2), 89. doi:10.1038
/nnano.2010.22.
“News in brief: FDA to implement Nanotechnology Task Force recommendations.” (2007).
Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 6, 690–691.
O’Leary, S. E., and Governo, D. M. (2014). Size v. substance: Consumer expectations and
nanomaterials in products. Claims, June 1, 26.
Patra, D., Ejnavarzala, H., and Basu, P. K. (2009). Nanoscience and nanotechnology: Ethical,
legal, social and environmental issues. Current Science, 96(5), 651–657.
Peter D. Hart Research Associates. (2009). Nanotechnology, synthetic biology and public
opinion: A report of findings based on a national survey of adults.
Salvi, L. (2015). The EU’s “soft reaction” to nanotechnology regulation in the food sector.
European Food and Feed Law Review, 10(3), 186–193.
Shan, L. C., Panagiotopoulos, P., Regan, Á., De Brún, A., Barnett, J., Wall, P., and McConnon, Á.
(2015). Interactive communication with the public: Qualitative exploration of the use
of social media by food and health organizations. Journal of Nutrition Education and
Behavior, 47(1), 104–108.
Watson, S. B., Gergely, A., and Janus, E. R. (2011). Where is “agronanotechnology” heading in
the United States and European Union? Natural Resources and Environment, 26(1), 8.

Nanotechnology in Nutraceuticals and Functional Foods 273

Downloaded by [Cornell University] at 06:01 19 October 2016