Georgia Miller

Nanotechnology has entered the global food chain. From atomic-level seed manipulation to using nano-processing to reduce the fat content of mayonnaise or to make milk taste like cola, nanotechnology has a broad range of applications in agriculture, food processing, food packaging and even farm and food surveillance.

Nanotechnology, the 'science of the small', represents the latest and in many ways the most far-reaching high-technology assault on real food and agriculture. Nanotechnology is the atomically processed antithesis to locally controlled, ecologically sustainable, food systems. It extends genetic engineering, enabling scientists to manipulate the DNA of living things. It further transforms the farm into an automated extension of the high technology factory production line, using patented products that will inevitably concentrate corporate control. It also introduces serious new risks for human health and the environment.

There has been extremely little public debate about nanotechnology's use in food and agriculture. There are no new laws to protect human health and the environment from its risks. There are also no requirements for product manufacturers to label nano-ingredients to enable us to make an informed choice about eating nano-foods.

Yet food products and agricultural inputs that contain manufactured nanomaterials have been released commercially and nanotechnology is being used widely in food packaging applications. The Helmut Kaiser Consultancy Group, a pro-nanotechnology analyst, suggests that there are now over 300 unlabelled nano food products available on the market worldwide. It predicts that nanotechnology will be used in 40% of the food industries by 2015.

Introduction to nanotechnology in food production and processing

Nanotechnology does not describe a singular technology, but rather an extremely small scale at which a range of technologies operate – the "nanoscale". This is the level of atoms and molecules – the building blocks of the natural and manufactured worlds. The nanoscale is understood to be under 100 nanometres (nm) in size. To put 100nm in context: a strand of DNA is 2.5nm wide, a protein molecule is 5nm, a red blood cell 7,000 nm and a human hair is 80,000 nm wide. Nanotechnology involves the manipulation of structures, devices, systems and biological materials at this nanoscale.

Nanotechnology embodies the dream that scientists can remake the world from the atom up, using atomic level manipulation to transform and construct a wide range of materials, devices, living organisms and technological systems.

There are four key focus areas for nanotechnology food research: nano-modification of seeds, fertilisers and pesticides; food 'fortification' and nano-reconstitution; food packaging and tracking; and interactive 'smart' food.

Nano-modification of seeds, fertilisers and pesticides

Proponents say that nanotechnology will be used to further automate the modern agribusiness unit. All farm inputs – seeds, fertilisers, pesticides and labour – will become increasingly technologically modified.

As new nanoproducts will inevitably be controlled by patents, many of which are held in the Global North, this will present a new assault on the ability of Southern farmers to control local food production.

Nanotechnology will take the genetic engineering of agriculture to the next level down – atomic engineering. Nanobiotechnology will enable scientists to rearrange plants' DNA to obtain different properties including colour, growth season, yield etc.

Nano-reformulation will produce highly potent atomically engineered fertilisers and pesticides. Several are already on the market, including products manufactured by Bayer and Syngenta.

Nano-sensors will ultimately enable plant growth, pH levels, the presence of nutrients, moisture, pests or disease to be monitored from far away, significantly reducing the need for on-farm labour inputs. The ETC Group warns in its seminal report 'Down on the Farm' (<www.etcgroup.org>) that in a nanotechnology shaped future, "the farm will be a wide area biofactory that can be monitored and managed from a laptop and food will be crafted from designer substances delivering nutrients efficiently to the body".

Food 'fortification' and nano-reconstitution

Nanotech companies are working to fortify processed food with nano-encapsulated nutrients, its appearance and taste boosted by nano-developed colours, its fat and sugar content removed by nano-reconstitution, and its 'mouth feel' improved.

Food 'fortification' using nanoscale 'neutraceuticals' will be used to increase the nutritional claims that can be made about a given processed food – for example the inclusion of 'medically beneficial' nano-capsules will soon enable chocolate chip cookies or hot chips to be marketed as health promoting or artery cleansing.

Nanotechnology will also enable junk foods like ice cream and chocolate to be reconstituted at the atomic scale to reduce the amount of fats and sugar. In this way, the nano industry could market vitamin, protein and fibre-fortified, fat and sugar-removed junk food as health promoting and weight reducing. We could theoretically meet our nutritional needs without changing our reliance on highly processed fast foods, or needing to eat fruit and vegetables.

Manufacturers of only three food products have so far acknowledge nano-content – canola oil, a chocolate meal-replacement diet milkshake and a tea.

Food packaging and tracking

Nanotechnology will dramatically extend food shelf life. Mars Inc. already has a patent on an invisible, edible, nano wrapper which envelopes chocolate bars, biscuits or lollies to prevent gas and moisture exchange.

Nano-composites and nano-coating are already used in packaging to extend the shelf life of crisps, chocolate, beer, soft drinks, meat and more. 'Smart' packaging (containing nano-sensors and anti-microbial activators) is being developed that will be capable of detecting food spoilage and releasing nano-anti-microbes to even further extend food shelf life, enabling manufacturers to transport food longer distances, and supermarkets to keep food for even greater periods before its sale.

Nano-sensors, embedded into food products as tiny chips invisible to the human eye, will also act as electronic barcodes. They will emit a signal that will allow food, including fresh food, to be tracked from paddock to factory to supermarket and beyond.

Interactive 'smart' food

Companies such as Kraft and Nestlé are designing 'smart' foods that will interact with consumers to 'personalise' food, changing colour, flavour or nutrients on demand. Kraft is developing a clear tasteless drink that contains hundreds of flavours in latent nano-capsules.

A domestic microwave could be used to trigger release of the colour, flavour, concentration and texture of the individual's choice.

'Smart' foods could also sense when an individual was allergic to a food's ingredients, and block the offending ingredient. Or alternatively, 'smart' packaging could release a dose of additional nutrients to those which it identifies as having special dietary needs, for example calcium molecules to people suffering from osteoporosis.

Key concerns about nanotechnology in food and agriculture

Nanotechnology takes us further away from 'real food'. Its use in agriculture is based on the premise that we can improve efficiency and productivity by rearranging atoms in seeds, by developing even more potent chemical inputs, by using high technology surveillance to allow electronic, rather than person-based surveillance of on-farm conditions, and by further automating inputs to plant growth.

Applications of nanotechnology to food processing assume that humans can 'improve' the taste, texture, appearance, nutritional content and longevity of food by manipulating it at the atomic level. It has even been argued that this will result in food that is 'safer'.

These assumptions are based on a flawed belief that humans can remake the natural world from the atom up – and get a better result. Unfortunately, history tells us that we are often unable to predict the consequences of our actions, especially when we are dealing with complex systems.

There are serious concerns about the consequences of releasing organisms modified using nanobiotechnology into natural systems. There is also a growing body of toxicological literature demonstrating that nanoparticles are more reactive, more mobile, and more likely than larger particles to be toxic to humans and the environment.

Test tube studies have shown that some nanomaterials are toxic to human tissues, cells and DNA. Other studies have shown that some nanomaterials can kill beneficial soil bacteria and aquatic invertebrates, stunt plant root growth and cause brain damage in fish. Although not all nanomaterials will prove toxic to humans or the environment, there is a clear need for caution.

In its 2004 report, the United Kingdom's Royal Society recognised the serious risks of nanotoxicity and recommended that "ingredients in the form of nanoparticles should undergo a full safety assessment by the relevant scientific advisory body before they are permitted for use in products".

Despite this warning, three years after the Royal Society's report, there are still no national laws governing the use of nanomaterials in products anywhere in the world, to ensure that they do not cause harm to the public using them, the workers producing them, or the environmental systems in which waste nanoproducts are released.

The potential for nanotechnology to further erode food sovereignty is also of serious concern. There are some nanotechnology proponents who argue that nanotechnology will be a boon for farmers in the Global South, boosting productivity and eliminating hunger. However those familiar with the genetic engineering debacle see parallels in the claims made by that industry and those now made by the emerging nano-food lobby.

Dr Donald Bruce, a chemist who heads a group examining technology and ethics for the Church of Scotland, is doubtful about industry claims that nano-agriculture will help the Global South. Bruce told the United Kingdom's Guardian newspaper that he sat on a committee 10 years ago which examined the moral implications of the introduction of genetic engineering: "The public were told that genetic modification was going to feed the world. And so we looked for evidence of any application of that science that had addressed the needs of a poor subsistence farmer. We couldn't find any. The industry went for agronomic benefits, not for people benefits."

This scepticism is shared by others. The ETC Group observes: "Despite rosy predictions that nanotech will provide a technical fix for hunger, disease and environmental security in the South, the extraordinary pace of nanotech patenting suggests that developing nations will participate via royalty payments. ... In a world dominated by proprietary science, it is the patent owners and those who can pay license fees who will determine access and price."

Vandana Shiva has argued that synthesising nanotechnology alternatives to food will "accelerate existing trends of patent monopolies over life – making a few corporations 'life-lords'."

Fearing that the expansion of nanotechnology into agriculture will further erode the ability of peasant, fishing and farming communities to retain local control and ownership of food production, the 2007 Nyéléni World Forum for Food Sovereignty resolved to work towards an immediate moratorium on nanotechnology.

The unwillingness of food companies to talk about their use of nanotechnology in food production and their plans for its future use is a huge a blow to transparency. Without any requirement for manufacturers to label nano-foods, or any willingness on the part of companies to do so voluntarily, there is no way for people to choose whether or not to eat nano-foods. This breach of public trust is compounded by government's failure to regulate nano-food products to ensure that workers, the public and the environment do not face unsafe exposure to nanomaterials.

Real food vs nano food

The use of nanotechnology in agriculture, food production and food processing present people everywhere with a stark choice between a future where food and food production in all its forms is atomically manipulated, industrialized and controlled by patents, and a future where we maintain and renew an integrated, healthy and respectful relationship with locally controlled farming and food production practices.

If you are interested in receiving more information about how nanotechnology is changing our food, or in getting involved with the Nanotechnology Project's work, check our website <nano.foe.org.au> or please get in touch.

Georgia Miller is a campaigner with FoE Australia's Nanotechnology Project. <georgia.miller@foe.org.au>