Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Governing with Ignorance: Understanding the Australian Food Regulator’s Response to Nano Food

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Response to this article was published on 30 June 2018

Abstract

This paper examines regulatory responses to the presence of previously undetected and unlabelled nanoparticles in the Australian food system. Until 2015, the Australian regulatory body Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) denied that nanoparticles were present in Australian food. However, and despite repeated claims from Australia’s food regulator, research commissioned by civil society group Friends of the Earth has demonstrated that nanoparticles are deliberately included as ingredients in an array of food available for sale in Australia. This paper critically examines how nanoparticles have come to be integrated into Australia’s food system under the radar of Australia’s food regulator. Our case study of FSANZ—including its responses to the civil society-led science that determined the existence of nanoparticles in Australian food—raises a number of important questions about the governance of risk in relation to emerging technologies such as nanotechnology. In this paper, we argue that FSANZ’ response to the presence of nanotechnology in Australia’s food system is an example of ‘governing with ignorance’. This is demonstrated via the denial and dismissal of science claims as a basis for limited regulatory intervention. FSANZ’ response intersects with the centrality of commercial interests in shaping science research and commercialisation, alongside the ‘hands off’ approach to regulation that is characteristic of neoliberal governance approaches. We conclude by arguing that in the current food governance framework, and alongside a paucity of impact science, civil society plays a vital role in attempts to democratise the Australian food system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. FSANZ (2014) Risk Analysis in Food Regulation, (January). http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/publications/riskanalysisfoodregulation/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed 9 Jan 2017

  2. Handford C, Dean M, Henchion M, Spence M, Elliott C, Campbell K (2014) Implications of nanotechnology for the agri-food industry: opportunities, benefits and risks. Trends Food Sci Technol 40(2):226–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2014.09.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Reed R, Schoeph J, Masles M, Westerhoff P (2015) Detecting engineered nanomaterials in processed foods from Australia, Final Report. Prepared by Arizona State University, for Friends of the Earth. (August 18). http://emergingtech.foe.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/FoE-Aus-Report-Final-web.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan 2017

  4. Friends of the Earth (2017) Illegal and potentially toxic nanoparticles found in baby formula (July). http://www.foe.org.au/nanoparticles_in_baby_formula. Accessed 6 July 2017

  5. Van der Zande M, Vandebriel R, Groot M, Kramer E, Herrera Rivera Z, Rasmussen K, Ossenkoppele J, Tromp P, Gremmer E, Peters R, Hendriksen P, Marvin H, Hoogenboom R, Peijnenburg A, Boumeester H (2014) Sub-chronic toxicity study in rats orally exposed to nanostructured silica, particle and fibre. Toxicology 11(1):8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-8977-11-8

    Google Scholar 

  6. Miller G, Scrinis G (2010) The role of NGOs in governing nanotechnologies: challenging the ‘benefits versus risks’ framing of nanotech innovation. In: Hodge G, Bowman D, Maynard A (eds) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 409–445. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849808125.00029

    Google Scholar 

  7. Williams-Jones B (2004) A spoonful of trust helps the nanotech go down. Health Law Review 12:10–13

    Google Scholar 

  8. Australian Government Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (2009) National Enabling Technologies Strategy. Australien Government, Canberra

  9. Mooney P (2010) The big squeeze: geopirating and the remaining commons. https://www.pambazuka.org/governance/big-squeeze-geopirating-remaining-commons. Accessed 1 Dec 2017

  10. Scrinis G, Lyons K (2012) Nano-functional foods: nanotechnology, nutritional engineering and nutritionally-reductive food marketing. In: Ghosh D, Das S, Bagchi D, Smarta R (eds) Innovation in healthy and functional foods. CRC Press, London, pp 547–554. https://doi.org/10.1201/b13022-41

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Bowman D, Dijkstra A, Fautz C, Guivant J, Konrad K, van Lente H, Woll S (2015) Moving beyond concern: practices of innovation and responsibility for emerging technology. In: Bowman D, Dijkstra A, Fautz C, Guivant J, Konrad K, van Lente H, Woll S (eds) Practices of innovation and responsibility: insights from methods, governance and action. AKA, Berlin

  12. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. RS-RAE, London. https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2004/nanoscience-nanotechnologies/. Accessed 9 Jan 2017

  13. Gould K (2015) Slowing the nanotechnology treadmill: impact versus production science for sustainable technological development. Environ Sociology 1(3):141–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2015.1041211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gergely A, Chaudhry Q, Bowman D (2011) Regulatory perspectives on nanotechnologies in foods and contact materials. In: Hodge G, Bowman D, Maynard A (eds) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 321–341 

    Google Scholar 

  15. Pustzai A, Bardocz S (2006) The future of nanotechnology in food science and nutrition: can science predict its safety? In: Hunt G, Mehta M (eds) Nanotechnology risk, ethics and law. Earthscan, London, pp 167–179

    Google Scholar 

  16. Das M, Saxena N, Dwivedi P (2009) Emerging trends of nanoparticles application in food technology: safety paradigms. Nanotoxicology 3(1):10–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17435390802504237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tran L, Chaudhry Q (2010) Engineered nanoparticles and food: an assessment of exposure and hazard. In: Chaudhry Q, Castle L, Watkins R (eds) Nanotechnologies in food. RSC Publishing, London, pp 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1039/9781847559883-00120

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Bettin S, Boutet-Robinet E, Cartier C, Coméra C, Gaultier E, Dupuy J, Naud N, Taché S, Grysan P, Reguer S, Thieriet N, Réfrégiers M, Thiaudière D, Cravedi J-P, Carrière M, Audinot J-N, Pierre FH, Guzylack-Piriou L, Houdeau E (2017) Food-grade TiO2 impairs intestinal and systemic immune homeostasis, initiates preneoplastic lesions and promotes aberrant crypt development in the rat colon. Sci Rep 7(40373):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40373

    Google Scholar 

  19. ETC Group (2004) Down on the farm. The impacts of nano-scale technologies on food and agriculture. ETC Group, Canada. http://www.etcgroup.org/content/down-farm-impact-nano-scale-technologies-food-and-agriculture. Accessed 9 January 2017

  20. Drew R, Hagen T (2016) Potential health risks associated with nanotechnologies in existing food additives, prepared for Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/publications/Pages/Potential-Health-Risks-Associated-with-Nanotechnologies-in-Existing-Food-Additives.aspx. Accessed 9 Jan 2017

  21. Wacquant L (2012) Three steps to a historical anthropology of actually existing neoliberalism. Soc Anthropol 20(1):66–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8676.2011.00189.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Collier SJ (2012) Neoliberalism as big leviathan, or…? A response to Wacquant and Hilgers. Soc Anthropol 20(2):186–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8676.2012.00195.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rose N (1993) Government, authority and expertise in advanced liberalism. Econ Soc 22(3):283–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085149300000019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rappert B (2015) Sensing absence: how to see what isn’t there in the study of science and security. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137592613

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Rayner S (2012) Uncomfortable knowledge: the social construction of ignorance in science and environmental policy discourses. Econ Soc 41(1):107–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2011.637335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. McGoey L (2007) On the will to ignorance in bureaucracy. Econ Soc 36(2):212–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140701254282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Foucault M (2003) Society must be defended. Penguin, London

    Google Scholar 

  28. Luhmann N (1998) Ecology of ignorance. In: Observations on modernity. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 75–114

  29. Proctor R, Schiebinger L (2008) Agnotology: the making and unmaking of ignorance. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto

    Google Scholar 

  30. Friends of the Earth (2008) Out of the laboratory and on to our plates. Nanotechnology in food and agriculture. Friends of the Earth, Australia. http://www.foe.org/system/storage/877/b5/4/547/Nanotechnology_in_food_and_agriculture_-_web_resolution.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan 2017

  31. Kuzma J, VerHage P (2006) Nanotechnology in agriculture and food production. Anticipated applications. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington. http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/files/2706/94_pen4_agfood.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan 2017

  32. Scrinis G, Lyons K (2010) Nanotechnology and the techno-corporate agri-food paradigm. In: Lawrence G, Lyons K, Wallington T (eds) Food security, nutrition and sustainability. Earthscan, London, pp 252–270

    Google Scholar 

  33. FAO/WHO (2010) FAO/WHO expert meeting on the application of nanotechnologies in the food and agriculture sectors: potential food safety implications. Meeting Report. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations and World Health Organisation, Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1434e/i1434e00.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan 2017

  34. Friends of the Earth (2014) Way too little. Our government’s failure to regulate nanomaterials in food and agriculture. Friends of the Earth, Australia. (May). http://emergingtech.foe.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/FOE_nanotech_food_report_low_res1.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan 2017

  35. Gardener E (2002) Brainy food: Academia, industry sink their teeth into edible nano. Solid state technology: insights for electronic manufacturing. http://electroiq.com/blog/2002/06/brainy-food-academia-industrybr-sink-their-teeth-into-edible-nano/. Accessed 9 Jan 2017

  36. Chaudhry Q, Scotter M, Blackburn J, Ross B, Boxall A, Castle L, Aitken R, Watkins R (2008) Applications and implications of nanotechnologies for the food sector. Food Add and Contam Part A Chem Anal Expo Risk Assess 25(3):241–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/02652030701744538

    Google Scholar 

  37. House of Lords (2010) Science and Technology Committee. First Report. Nanotechnologies and food. House of Lords, London. https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldsctech/22/2202.htm. Accessed 9 Jan 2017

  38. Scienceogram UK (2013) Global private and public R&D funding. https://scienceogram.org/blog/2013/05/science-technology-business-government-g20/. Accessed 30 March 2017

  39. Gray G (2013) The effects of pharmaceutical research funding: a social organisation approach. J Law, Medicine Ethics 40(3):629–634. https://doi.org/10.1111/jlme.12072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Mirowski P (2011) Science-Mart: privatising American science. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  41. Nestle M (2013) Conflicts of interest to the integrity of food regulation. JAMA Intern Med 173(22):2036–2038. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.9158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ross JS, Madigan D, Konstam MA, Egilman DS, Krumholz HM (2010) Persistence of cardiovascular risk after rofecoxib discontinuation. Arch Intern Med 170(22):2035–2036. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2010.461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. European Commission, Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (2016) Opinion on hydroxyapatite (nano) CAS No 1306-06-5.https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_q_103.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2017

  44. Han E (2015) Nanotechnology found in popular foods, despite repeated denials by regulator. Sydney Morning Herald. http://www.smh.com.au/business/retail/nanotechnology-found-in-popular-foods-despite-repeated-denials-by-regulator-20150916-gjnqgj.html. Accessed 17 Sept 2016

  45. Friend of the Earth (2017) FSANZ website statement on nano hydroxyapatite, October 2016 (June). http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/foodtech/nanotech/Pages/Nanoparticles-and-infant-formula.aspx. Accessed 6 July 2017

  46. Card J, Jonaitis T, Tafazoli S, Magnuson B (2011) An appraisal of the published literature on the safety and toxicity of food-related nanomaterials. Crit Rev Toxicol 41(1):20–49. https://doi.org/10.3109/10408444.2010.524636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Friends of the Earth (2016) FSANZ misleads the public on the risks of nano-ingredients in food (June). http://emergingtech.foe.org.au/resources/fsanz-misleads-the-public-on-the-health-risks-of-nano-ingredients-in-food/. Accessed 4 July 2017

  48. Dekkers S, Krystek P, Peters RJ, Lankveld DX, Bokkers BG, van Hoeven-Arentzen PH, Bouwmeester H, Oomen AG (2011) Presence and risks of nanosilica in food products. Nanotoxicology 5(3):393–405. https://doi.org/10.3109/17435390.2010.519836

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Social Science and Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4067, Australia

    Kristen Lyons

  2. School of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, Federation University Australia, Mount Helen, VIC, 3350, Australia

    Naomi Smith

Authors
  1. Kristen Lyons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Naomi Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristen Lyons.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lyons, K., Smith, N. Governing with Ignorance: Understanding the Australian Food Regulator’s Response to Nano Food. Nanoethics 12, 27–38 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-017-0309-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-017-0309-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation