Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
generally understood as the use of nanotechnology techniques or tools dur-
ing cultivation, production, processing, or packaging of food (Joseph and
Morisson 2006; Chaudhry et al. 2010); hence, nanotechnologies are integrated
throughout the food chain production (Table 6.1).
The number of nanofood applications on the consumer market varies
widely depending on the source, going from approximately 100 (PEN 2011),
to 300 (HKC 2007), or even as much as 150 to 600 (FOE Australia 2008). A
close examination of nanosilver applications alone outputs 565 nanosilver
products or product ranges among 441 companies within all application
sectors, not specifically nanofood products and cookware, but disregard-
ing medicinal colloidal silver. Most of these applications were sourced in
Southeast Asia; more specifically, 36% originated from China and 38% from
South Korea (Berge 2012).
Yet, the lack of reliable data certainly leads to an underestimation of nano-
food products integrated into the food chain. It is worth noting that there
are no common definitions or national inventories (House of Lords 2010a),
no mandatory labeling of foods that incorporate nanotechnologies (FOE
Australia 2008), and that the principal companies involved are reluctant to
disclose any information pertaining to their nanoproducts or divulge any
research information (Chun 2009).
In this context, it also becomes difficult to know the exact number of com-
panies, their involvement in research, and/or current usage of nanotechnolo-
gies in food applications. Some data from 2006 estimated this number to
be between 200 (ISFT 2006) and 400 (Cientifica Ltd. 2006 in Chaudhry et al.
2010). They are mostly large multinationals in the food and beverage sec-
tor, who invest massively in R&D (FOE Australia 2008; Kuzma and VerHage
2006), but do so covertly (Benoit Browaeys 2009), sometimes erasing from
their websites any nanotechnology-related information or advances they
make in the field,* while the impact from start-ups and research centers var-
ies considerably as they are often bought out and absorbed by multinationals
(see Scrinis and Lyons 2007).
Thus, it is difficult to evaluate the breadth of the nanofood sector, its real
economic importance, its outcome in terms of products and economic growth,
the diversity of their uses, and the value of their related patents within the
industry—in short, the overall social and economic benefits and short ends of
nanofoods. Despite a thorough review of the scientific literature, of (inter-)national
reports, and gray literature, there are very few credible information, which often
are incomplete, so that the global picture of the field remains quite shady.
*
At the start of the 2000s, Kraft Foods put together a consortium called “Nanotek”; it involved
15 universities and research laboratories around the world. However, shortly following the
wave of uncertainties concerning nanofoods and the industry reticence in publicly sharing
their activities, Kraft Foods yielded the Nanotek consortium to its partner, Philipp Morris
USA (Altria owner), which changed its name to “Interdisciplinary Network of Emerging
Science and Technologies” (INEST), thereafter erasing all traces and references to nanotech-
nologies, a dubious transparency operation (Berdot 2007; House of Lords 2010a).
